










• • 


aV 


ay 


M 0 ♦ '"‘a «, t* « # . (V‘* 

- •■> ,j» s*M>Z* % c° „ 





j? v^. „ 


^ "V* '*^r° ^ % *•/*••' ^°' J 

,<) V * 5 Vj»**, v v * * * °* <0 V ** • * r 

& .^,. *. a v t ^ / ■ 

* 


w 

.V j>* %.* 

y , A^ o w O + $ * 

% c- .* - 

W '' 





-. ^ v "\. °» 

•'.Vs* A <, -..»- .v 

«'0 9 ^>o <£. r\V o N <? *>> 

.,■& .%V^J 9 * *£_ <\ v , 6 c«y % Xp 


<*4 tf* 

V^£AK * <t? °c> V 

■''o» a * A 0r • v5 
_ */> 


**r\*’ A 

it .4.0* l»i£p 


;* * °" ° ^ 

^ , V . *!, * °* c\. 4*- 

A V-* 


jp %. •jESRl* av vvJIak* i 

Xr »** A <\ *'o.i* 4 .0* 

•i^\*** °o ^ , cr 

^ ik 

_ tN/Wid * . C\ U^SA • A ^ -/I 


*•»'** f 0< 

v • o- *c> .<y 

* *$* >■ /& «.*■ 

° ^v ; 

• 0>-^ • 

,* ^ V » 


CU AV .JAI', <> 


4 o 

& + 


9 ^ V" - ® 

» 4 0^ 

> d' ^ o <r 

WP • <l r 

* o «o 0 ^ _, . 

/» 4jf4W. >*4*s'. %, A° * 

^ *eMa« ^ ^ .»,«^, o o ; 

A ^ 


r ^ * rf T^* 4 A V 

0 o * 0 0 "^Q A • ^ 1 « ^ 

1". '*b ^ 



) ♦ cj ir » 

N * 

^ ... d 5 ". ^ouo 0 ^ 


- c * ■-'^' 3 ,0' 

*' n <A ^**» ® • ® ’ <V 

c\ % 9 . --'♦ <> v 

# ^ ^ 


; > v %, "fil ; 

O. " c • ^ * a c . ^ 


v« 

• A j 

* A' ^v ^ 

*’ ^ v '^* si <. '«• 

►0 v 0 o * ® ^ 4^ ’•*£*. 

a -m^s. %.£ '• 



*taur*' a 

^ -?/A 0^ vr. VtTT*’ / 

o ^ °4 (f ' O. 4/^ , qv t o# o aN 

^ ^d» * 



<>t 


*“•■ <i» v e %.‘^‘ v 
V » Y • o. < 

■ 

o aV^\ 

,‘ 4^ ^ 

iA ^ 

^ >t •'•*-*« 



6 . ^d« :^j|ff: ^o/ .% 

I’ -#%> Jp% v 

’ A 0 ’ .. V'..••*<>* C V*^’*’ A°° ^ '».Ti 

^r» ^ * caEst « ^f. a<* ^V/k- ^p # -sit. 

v "- * 





»f.»* ,0^ **yw*T'* a 

A -- ^o A v . 

' o ^ .,* 


-oV^ 


e o r » 

; iP^h » 



^ ‘'n'V ..^V^.TJ^’V 

^ 4? ^ V V • y * * v*. , | 

° ^ <y* *^^T‘ ^$- 4 Va’° ^>. 

. v^ *p ® ^ v v • «^S\v^wZa o vp, 

r,* . 4> »y^W‘ A 

^ /\ ^1 mS kX / V* 




<%> A 

* * 5 aV 




• ^ S* . * .V 

^ 

<y ,l'% <S> ^ Qr & 0 " ° * "o 

* ^ a * 

» / °- : 

* ^.r o 

<P-A '•■o’ a« "*•'■ A v 

+ ir- V oV> aO .** 


• ^ ** ♦*- 


,<=>^ u 
* <? *&> • 

^ ^ «> 




* % *' 
' V-V 


‘ #*\ 

* <l v ri» * 



•* A °o. *^,.» ., 0 » * 


* 0 jV .t... * 5 >. 

% O 4» ♦Wfcte.* V, . 


V * * * °* aP A 4 l./W * _ ’r 

^ 4>'\ 

VV * i 


.vv *$. ° 

r _v <& ° 





A^ .»•'** 

<r Va 


O • * 



• <L r C\ 

; W kV « ^\E 4 t 
* /V . 

4 <L V rJ* . v’ ^ < 

* <Cr *S\r. s* A <^ *«•' 

0 vUSttw'.. o . 4 * ^ 



^ / V y - 1 V*^>*\. 

aV « ♦ • , ^ > _y • o _ A < 9 & s ^4. </ f ’ 

A,** a. V /<5/, «£. A A. V 

^ ^ ««kr. ^ ^ .*£ 9 Bk‘- t/ MSS 




O 

* <V 

^ .•g. v 

<* *®» *■ Ay 

V 0 ° ** oMO 


Sr >a . 




^v 

% <J\ 


:< i 


* ^» 0 

at A *' 

~V 5 H J . ^ 

C U C? 




* *^uu % r\ 

<?,. *..1‘ A° 



^ v *y Y . v 0 >-.... 


^ ^ - 
V^ 51 


♦ ^ ^ - 
o cy ♦ 

vT'- 




. ^ # * 
■ ^ 




* . V 1 V . 

.* v >- 


'^. A * 

o X^,. civ * 

• * 

♦ V ^ 0 



o « 


o«o* *^o a^ .i*** ^ ^o v cfJL°% o, a* %*!£?+ * 

* c, 0 .• jS s^va- 0 ^ 

* 



•w 


*- ^-o 4 :^L 

'^W&; *-°% *;■ 

.* °o.‘‘T/,!-’ a0° ^'‘•...» V 


.. .<)' ,*••'» > V 'i'a'. ^ A° k^rtSBi 


«^. x^ v ♦ 

civ * 

^<p 


^ # N# 

• «f. ^- V *‘ 

«• 2 + ** 

• C?> i ^?r% 

4 \ck • 

<A *'. B -« 4 y A 

-•a ^ , 0 ^ ..nr^ ♦©, .,# > 1 1 ^ % % 






«• civ * 

; ^ ^ 

^ o 

* 'V ^ c 



^T* A 



* f-. 


-w 



* 4/ > * > v ^> * 

V ^o *'** 4 . 0 ^ ^ 

^ k V « w o . ^ 


^ °o ^TTn^ A? ^ "«To° ^ o 

o M o <V «^* A v « • « , <> - X • Oa <0 

r£* A v //h o dS ^ 0 




O. v> 




C°‘ °o 

A A 

* NT 

A* '^J . * « 4 1 * A v 

.* & % % 

A. ^ ^/i « 


O, ♦« / n• A? 
















































- 













o\Ar ^ /yf± . 



Vn 


REEORT 


OF THE 

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


ON THE 


COLLECTION OF DUTIES. 
























t 

















d 

VV 

r> 

d 

CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Investigations ordered by the Department.... ill 

Inquiries to Customs Officials. iv 

Invoices and their Verification. V 

Consular Authentication of Invoices. XI 

The Entry of Merchandise. xvm 

Appraisement. xx 

Reappraisement. xxvm 

Final Assessment of Duty . xxxiv 

Special Agents of the Treasury and Chief Officers of the Ports. XL 

Suits against Collectors. xliii 

Examination of Passengers’ Baggage. XLVI 

Deterrent Legislation against Frauds on the Revenue. lii 








































































































































THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES. 


Treasury Department, December 7, 1885. 

Sir : In the month of January, 1885, my excellent predecessor in this 
Department, Mr. McCulloch, had been constrained, by the conduct of 
certain Special Agents of this Department at the Port of Hew York, to 
order an investigation thereof. Three Special Agents of the Treasury 
were selected to make the necessary inquiries. Additional instructions 
were given to these Agents, and on the same topic, on February 25,1885. 
The work being in progress when I came to the Department, I gave 
such other instructions, from time to time, as seemed needed to. pro¬ 
mote and accomplish the object. The reports made by those to whom 
the investigation was confided will be found in the accompanying doc¬ 
uments, on pages 10 to 31. 

In February, 1885, and on the suggestion of the Special Agents Divis¬ 
ion of this Department, my predecessor directed an inquiry to be made 
by the Special Agents who advised such inquiry, into undervaluations, 
damage allowance, drawbacks, and such other irregular practices at 
the Port of Hew York as might come under their notice. The result 
of that investigation will be found on pages 32 to 63 of the papers here¬ 
with transmitted. 

On March 16, 1885, complaints having been made to me of improper 
conduct in reappraisements at the Port of Hew York, I directed the 
Special Agents to thoroughly examine the subject, whose report will 
be found on pages 74 to 99. 

A short time thereafter I ordered an investigation by the Special 
Agents, and a report to me, of the manner in which the customs business 
was generally transacted in the several Collection Districts, and indi¬ 
cated one hundred and eleven points, or topics, about which I wished 
to be especially informed. The result thereof will be found herewith, 
on pages 100 to 128. 

On June 27, 1885, one of the General Appraisers, together with two of 
the Special Agents, having been directed by me to investigate the 
entry, appraisement, and classification of imported merchandise at* Bos¬ 
ton, Hew York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, made reports, which will 
be found on pages 63 to 74. 

Subsequently, and in March and April, I sent a request to local offi¬ 
cers in the Collection Districts, that each of them would inform me to 

( 1 ) 



II 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


what extent, in his opinion, the force employed in his District might be 
reduced without detriment to the public service. The replies received, 
together with tabular statements showing the reductions made subse¬ 
quently by me in the size and expense of the customs service, will be 
found on pages 129 to 273. 

Having reason to feel that such inquiries as had been set on foot by 
my predecessor, or myself, through the Special Agents of the Treasury 
might have been partial, or possibly controlled by prejudices, or pre¬ 
conceived theories, entertained by those Agents, and being desirous to 
satisfactorily ascertain the real relation existing, in the customs service, 
between those Agents and the Chief Officers at the more important of 
the several ports, and also wishing to obtain the opinion of those local 
officers respecting the character and causes of the present condition of 
the service,—I sent, in August last, to a large number of the last-named 
officers, including District Attorneys in the more important of the judi¬ 
cial districts, a Circular Letter of Inquiry. A copy of that Circular 
Letter accompanies (page £31) this report. 

A part of my original purpose, in the preparation and use of this 
Circular Letter, was to get information and opinions from the local of¬ 
ficers to aid me in working out conclusions which I could properly 
transmit to Congress for its appreciation, and possibly for its guidance 
in enacting new laws where required for improving, and strengthening, 
this most essential branch of the Government service. But, on a care¬ 
ful examination of the replies, and on a comparison of the conflicting 
views taken, not only by officers at the same port, but by officers at differ¬ 
ent ports, as well as in consideration of opposing opinions betwen Spe¬ 
cial Agents and local officers, it seemed to me better to transmit to 
Congress the text of each reply. 

My endeavor has been to leave each officer quite free to frankly ex¬ 
press his opinion as an officer, and to criticise the decisions of this De¬ 
partment, as well as the conduct of the superiors, or associates, at the 
several ports. To these 227 circulars of inquiry sent out by me, re¬ 
plies have been received excepting from the small number of 19. 
All but 25 of the replies are from officers who were in the customs 
service prior to March last. 

The decision to send to Congress each one of the replies was some¬ 
what •influenced by the thought that a perusal of all of them by mem¬ 
bers of the legislative branch of the Government may throw light on 
the familiarity of -those customs officers with the laws which they ad¬ 
minister, their general intelligence, their fidelity and zeal. The char¬ 
acter of the replies received from those who occupy the places of Exam- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Ill 


iners in the Appraising Department is especially noteworthy, as well 
as the tendency, more or less apparent, of so many of the local officers 
and the Special Agents, to allude to ¥ew York as the port where the 
larger part of the offences against the revenue laws have been and are 
committed, as well as the disagreement of opinion between the Collec¬ 
tor, the local officers of certain ports, and Special Agents of the Treas¬ 
ury assigned to those ports. 

In transmitting to the Senate and House this large body of informa¬ 
tion on customs affairs, coming from so many different sources, and from 
so many widely separated ports and places, and many of the opinions 
conflicting with one another, it will naturally be expected by Congress, 
and by the country, that I express my own conclusions on the matters 
wherein there is not a unison of opinion in the replies. 

INVOICES, AND THEIR VERIFICATION. 

The weakest point in the execution of the customs-revenue law has 
been, and is now, at the inception of the importation of dutiable mer¬ 
chandise. Perhaps such defect in administration is inherent in any 
tariff system that depends for its integrity on the correct ascertainment 
of foreign values. The difficulties are twofold. The first comes of the 
persistent unwillingness of shippers to tell the truth in invoices. The 
second comes of the ignorance, or inattention, or something worse, of 
our own Consular officers. This last is the more inexcusable, since 
quite four-fifths of the money that upholds, and keeps alive, our entire 
Consular system is derived from fees levied for the pretended Consular 
examination of invoices. 

During nearly three-quarters of a century, our tariff laws have re¬ 
quired shippers, and especially manufacturers, as a condition precedent 
of sending merchandise to this country, to disclose, and declare, the 
real value thereof. This will appear on a brief review of our legisla¬ 
tion, and such a review is necessary now because of the idea that has 
recently been so industriously put about, that there is something modern, 
or novel, or unnecessarily exacting in the present requirements of Con¬ 
gress in that relation. 

In 1789, the first law was enacted to regulate the collection of duties. 
Therein it was required that every person, having any merchandise on 
board any arriving vessel, make entry thereof with the Collector of the 
port where the same shall arrive, declaring the net prime cost , and pro¬ 
duce to the Collector the original invoice, or invoices. One year after 
ward that law was repealed. Another was enacted to take its place, 


IV 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


for which, on March 2,1799, the elaborate enactment of that last-named 
date was substituted. It has remained to this day as the foundation 
and the frame-work of subsequent legislation for the taking possession 
of arriving merchandise, and the levying and collecting of duties thereon. 
The thirty-seventh section declared as did former laws, that the owner 
or consignee, or agent of the owner or consignee of merchandise, shall 
make an entry thereof in writing with the Collector, and shall therein 
specify, among other things, the 1 \prime cost. 7 7 This law referred, it is 
to be assumed, only to purchased goods. 

On April 20, 1818, the law of 1799 was amended, and new require¬ 
ments made in respect to invoices, so that, in addition to the former 
oath under the law of 1799, the person making entry of merchandise 
subject to ad valorem duty, must declare that the invoice produced by 
him exhibits u the true value 77 of such merchandise, in its actual state of 
manufacture, at the place from which the same was imported. The 
eighth section declared that any dutiable merchandise, belonging to a 
person residing and being at the time of entry outside of the United 
States, shall not be admitted to entry unless the invoice shall be verified 
before an American Consul abroad. This is one of the earliest laws re¬ 
quiring the participation of Consular officers in the importation and 
entry of merchandise. The same section declared that, under the cir¬ 
cumstances of ownership last described, the owner or owners, shall 
swear “whether he or they are the manufacturers, in whole or in part, 
of such goods, wares or merchandise, or are concerned directly or indi¬ 
rectly in the profits of any art or trade by which they have been brought 
to their present state of manufacture; and if so, he or they shall further 
swear that the prices charged in the aforesaid invoice are the current 
value of the same at the place of manufacture, and such as he or they 
would have received if the same had been there sold in the usual course 
of trade.” This early law, it will be seen, distinctly regulated the 
entry of merchandise by foreign manufacturers consigning their pro¬ 
ducts to this country for sale on their account and risk, which has re¬ 
cently created so much difficulty. 

The law was again amended on March 1, 1823, when the distinction 
was made plain, which now exists in the law, between an invoice of 
merchandise purchased abroad and imported by the purchaser, and 
merchandise not actually purchased abroad in the ordinary mode of 
bargain and sale, but imported by the manufacturer. That law of 1823 
required that the invoice of purchased goods shall contain “a true and 
faithful account of the actual cost thereof” and be accompained by an 
affidavit of the truth of such declaration administered by the Consul, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


V 


or Commercial Agent, of the United States. If the merchandise be 
imported by one who has not acquired it in the ordinary mode of bar¬ 
gain and sale, or belongs to the manufacturer in whole or in part, then 
the invoice, verified by the oath of the owner, must contain “a true 
and faithful account of the said goods, wares or merchandise at their 
fair market value at the time and place when and where the same were 
procured or manufactured as the case may be.” On March 3d, 1863, 
new requirements were added. Theretofore only a single legalized in¬ 
voice was necessary, but, in 1863, all invoices were required to be made 
in triplicate. They must, at or before shipment, be produced to a Con¬ 
sular officer nearest the place of shipment , and have indorsed thereon, 
when so produced, a signed declaration setting forth that the invoice 
is in all respects true; that it contains, if the merchandise be subject to 
ad valorem duty and was obtained by purchase, a true and full state¬ 
ment of the time when and the place where the same was purchased 
and of the actual cost thereof; and, when obtained in any other manner 
than by purchase, the actual market value thereof at the time when and 
where the Same was procured, or manufactured. This law (Rev. Stats., 
sec. 2855) also requires that the person producing the invoice shall, at 
the time of production, declare to the American Consular officer, the port 
in the United States at which it is intended to make entry, whereupon 
such officer shall indorse, upon each of the triplicates, a certificate 
stating that the invoice has been produced to him, with the date of such 
production and the name of the person producing it, and the port of 
entry. This last proceeding by the Consul is the consular authentication 
of the invoice, as distinct from the verification of the invoice by the 
owner. The Consular officer is required to deliver one of said tripli¬ 
cates to the shipper to be used in making an entry 5 file another in his 
office to be there preserved; and transmit the remaining one to the 
Collector of the port of entry. It will thus be seen that, ever since 
1823, and even earlier, the law has imposed upon a shipper of purchased 
goods the simple task of honestly and truthfully declaring by his in¬ 
voice, to the customs officers, the actual transaction by which he 
obtained the merchandise. 

It will be inferred from an examination of the documents herewith 
transmitted that a large part of the frauds perpetrated on the revenue 
have been, and are accomplished by incorrect invoices of merchandise 
not obtained by purchase, but consigned hither by manufacturers for 
sale in this country by their agents on the account and risk of the owner. 
The requirement of the law in respect to the invoices of such merchan¬ 
dise has been so long in force in this country that the meaning of it 
ought to be, by this time, well established, and understood, both at home 


VI 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and abroad, by those concerned in importations to this country, and 
the existence of a “ market value” of merchandise manufactured abroad, 
and extensively imported, and sold in this country, ought to be a fact 
easy of ascertainment at home or abroad. But, nevertheless, the ex¬ 
istence of the fact appears to have been denied, and the difficulty of 
ascertaining the fact by our own Appraisers appears to have been so 
great, that the ninth section of the law of 1883 declared that when the 
fact cannot be ascertained, to the satisfaction of the Appraiser, “it shall 
then be lawful to appraise by ascertaining the cost or value, of the 
materials composing such merchandise at the time and place of manu¬ 
facture, together with the expense of manufacturing, preparing and 
putting up such merchandise for shipment.” 

The Special Agents of the Treasury, and several of the local officers of 
the customs, express the opinion that the consignment of products to 
this country by foreign manufacturers for sale by their agents, has 
largely and injuriously increased during recent years, and that our tariff 
law has promoted the increase. Whether or not that opinion be correct, 
and whether or not our tariff legislation has increased such consign¬ 
ments relatively to the sum total of importations, I am not prepared to 
say. Nor am I prepared to say that such form of importation, by which 
foreign manufacturers present their merchandise in this country for sale, 
is an injury, provided the full rate and amount of duty prescribed by 
Congress be thereon uniformly levied and collected. That form of impor¬ 
tation is not novel. After the enactment of the law of 1863, and twenty 
years ago, prosecutions were begun in California, and in New York, for the 
forfeiture of large shipments of Champagne Wines,- Sherry Wines, Silk 
Ribbons and Silk Goods, all of which were sent to this country by the 
producers, or manufacturers, on consignment. The averment of the 
Government was that the invoices did not contain “the actual market 
value” as required by the law of 1863, but that the invoices were know¬ 
ingly and with intent, made to evade the revenue by declaring a less 
value. A suit originally tried by a Court and jury at San Francisco, 
came by writ of error to the Supreme Court at Washington. (See CliquoU s 
Champagne, 3 Wallace Rep., p. 114.) That Court in its opinion consid¬ 
ered, and finally adjudged, many of the questions which have been pre¬ 
sented to me, in the documents herewith transmitted to Congress, as 
novel and obscure. The Court defined the distinction in our revenue 
law between “the actual cost” of purchased goods, and “the actual 
market value” of consigned goods, and, in the following language, de¬ 
clared the meaning of the last phrase as applied to invoices. It said: 

“ The inquiry therefore presents itself: What is the 1 actual market 
value’ in the sense of that (1863) statute? The market value of goods. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


VII 


is the price at which the owner of the goods, or the producer, holds 
them for sale; (2) the price at which they are freely offered in the market 
to all the world; (3) such prices as dealers in the goods are willing to 
receive, and purchasers are made to pay, when the goods are bought 
and sold in the ordinary course of trade.” 

Subsequently, and in 1868, the prosecution for the forfeiture of Sherry 
Wine, consigned in like manner by the manufacturers, came on for trial 
in the City of New York, before Judge Blatchford and a Jury sitting in 
the Federal District Court. The charge to the Jury of the learned Judge 
is given at length in the second volume of Benedict’s District Court 
Reports, (page 249,) and deals in a most instructive and authoritative 
way with all the questions which appear to have recently so perplexed 
and confused the local customs officers at New York, and the Special 
Agents of the Treasury. During the next year, and in New York, 
a suit for the forfeiture of six cases of Silk Ribbons, invoking sim¬ 
ilar questions, came on for trial before the same Judge and a Jury, 
where again the phrase “actual market value” was, for a third time, 
most clearly considered and defined in its manifold relations, together 
with the sources to which either the appraiser in determining dutiable 
values, or the jury in ascertaining invoice values were entitled then, and 
are entitled now, to look. 

It is difficult to understand how an honest, and well-meaning manu¬ 
facturer, consigning his products to this country for sale, can now have 
doubt about the meaning of the phrase “ actual market value.” He is 
to be presumed, as well as one of our own citizens, to know our laws. 
The laws themselves are printed, and judicial expositions of the mean¬ 
ing of the j)hrase “actual market value” have also been printed, and 
are accessible to the foreign manufacturer, as well as to our own citi¬ 
zens. Each one of those manufacturers, who has large transactions with 
this country, has most intelligent agents here who are his consignees. 
The manufacturer, or those agents, can always apply to this Depart¬ 
ment for information as to the meaning of obscure or doubtful phrases 
in the tariff law, or, if he or they prefer, they can apply to counsel 
learned in the tariff law who will adequately advise them. There can 
be no excuse, therefore, for ignorance, or misinformation. The plea of 
the foreign manufacturer is that, for his own purposes, he does not 
freely offer at the place of manufacture for sale and shipment to the 
United States, articles similar to those that he consigns to this country, 
and therefore, since they are not thus freely bought and sold at that 
place for the American market, there is no “market value” of them 
at that place within the meaning of our invoice law. But the Supreme 
Court of the United States anticipated the frivolous objection when it 
said that the “actual market value,” in the sense of the statute, is such 


VIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

a price as manufacturers of the goods “are willing to receive . 77 It is 
absurd for a foreign manufacturer to seriously contend that there is not 
a price, at the time and place of manufacture, that he expects to receive 
for the merchandise which he has manufactured year after year in such 
large quantities for consignment to the United States. It is probably 
true that the whole production of such manufacturer is not sent to the 
United States, but that a portion is sold to go to other parts of the 
world, and for such portion there is a price asked, and received, by the 
manufacturer, which should be evidence to his own mind of the 41 mar¬ 
ket value 77 of the portion sent to the United States. The net price 
which, during a longer or shorter period, the manufacturer abroad act¬ 
ually receives, as the result of his consignments to this country, should 
also offer evidence to his mind tending to show what is he “market 
value 77 of the merchandise at the time and place of manufacture. It is 
true that our law levies duties, not upon the home value in the United 
States, but upon the foreign value at the time of shipment, in the prin¬ 
cipal markets of the country of exportation, and evidence of this home 
value may not, in all cases, be relevant, according to strict rules of legal 
evidence, to the question of foreign value, but if a manufacturer takes 
orders from New York to deliver his merchandise in that city at a 
specified price, duty paid, that transaction ought to afford, and un¬ 
doubtedly does afford, an honest manufacturer a satisfactory basis by 
which he can arrive at the “market value 77 at the time and place of 
manufacture. The real difficulty is believed to inhere in the fact that 
the manufacturer does not wish, or intend, to declare in his invoice to 
the customs officers of the United States, the true value prescribed by 
American law which he is bound to know, and does know. I can but 
think, therefore, that the difficulties suggested, by the Special Agents 
of the Treasury, and local officers, in the documents herewith trans¬ 
mitted, are more fictitious than real, and that they will, in a measure, 
disappear if there be more intelligence, vigor, and fidelity manifested 
by the consular, appraising and prosecuting officers of the United States 
in ascertaining invoice values. 

That very extensive frauds have, during many years, been perpetrated 
upon the revenue by false invoice values, I cannot doubt. Many of 
them have been perpetrated by invoices of merchandise consigned by 
manufacturers. I appreciate the difficulties which surround the ad¬ 
ministration of our revenue law in that regard. But large frauds have 
also been perpetrated by invoices of goods obtained by purchase, and 
especially by invoices of merchandise obtained by purchase in the great 
cities of Europe. Sellers openly propose to buyers in those cities to 
make a fictitious invoice for use at the custom-house in this country. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


IX 


American purchasers who dislike to directly participate in a fraud upon 
the revenue of their country, consent, I am told, that the articles shall 
be shipped hither by an agent in Paris to his agent in New York, (such 
agent being often an express company,) and to such agent in New York 
the ^igent in Paris sends a fictitious and fraudulent invoice upon which 
the goods may be entered and duty paid,—the buyer fancying that, 
although he perfectly understands the transaction, and that the law is to 
be violated, he will, nevertheless, be himself free from the taint of immoral 
and illegal conduct, and his property safe from condemnation. Mer¬ 
chandise entered under such circumstances would be liable to forfeiture 
under the law if the facts were known to the officers of the United 
States, and could be judicially established. 

I have dwelt so much in detail upon the subject of invoices, because 
a true and correct invoice lies at the foundation of, and is essential to, 
an honest enforcement of the existing complicated tariff law. A false 
invoice, coming from a well-known dealer abroad of respectable repute, 
may poison the appraising system of this Government at its fountain, 
and for a long time mislead the Appraisers. The United States have 
the right, and the power, to prescribe the circumstances under which 
either their own citizens, or foreigners, may be permitted to bring mer¬ 
chandise into the country. Those requirements may, in the opinion of 
foreign manufacturers, be onerous, severe, and embarrassing, but, if 
ordained by our law, they must be complied with, or those manufact¬ 
urers must abstain from the attempt to send their merchandise hither. 

CONSULAR AUTHENTICATION OF INVOICES. 

A large number of the accompanying replies from Special Agents, and 
local customs officers, refer to the imperfect and misleading manner in 
which consular officers execute the laws enacted to insure the presenta¬ 
tion of correct and truthful invoices upon the entry of imported mer¬ 
chandise. My observation leads me generally to concur in the criticisms 
made. The work, as it has been, for some time past, and is now per¬ 
formed by too many of our Consular officers, in the verification and 
authentication of invoices, is really worse than worthless, because 
tending to mislead, and deceive, appraising officers. It has been seen 
that not until the law of April 20, 1818, were Consular officers required 
to participate in the verification of invoices. Difficulties were experi¬ 
enced in executing that law because certain foreign countries forbade 
American Consular officers to administer oaths to shippers not Ameri¬ 
can citizens. Therefore the subsequent law of 1823 attempted a relief 
in that regard by permitting such foreigners to make oath before a 
magistrate of the country where the oath was administered, and then 
requiring the invoice to contain a certificate by an American Consular 


X 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


officer that the person administering the oath was a competent magis¬ 
trate. Up to July 14, 1862, only such invoices needed to be thus veri¬ 
fied, and certified, as covered merchandise, subject to ad valorem duty, 
the owner, or owners, of which resided out of the United States. The 
seventeenth section of the last-named law forbade any merchandise, no 
matter where or by whom owned, to be admitted to entry unless the 
invoice be verified by oath of the owner, or agent, to be administered 
by a Consular officer of the United States, or a magistrate of the coun¬ 
try duly authorized. It is to be inferred that difficulties were again 
interposed, or consular officers represented that they were interposed, 
in the way of executing this requirement of an oath, because the subse¬ 
quent law of March 3, 1863, instead of compelling the owner to make 
oath to his invoice, only required an indorsement thereon of a declaration 
signed by the proper person. Two years later, and on March 3, 1865, 
there was an enactment, containing only one section (Rev. Stats., sec. 
2862) which authorized all Consular officers to require, before certify¬ 
ing any invoice under the law of March 3, 1863, 1 i satisfactory evidence, 
either by the oath of the person presenting such invoices, or otherwise , 
that such invoices are correct and true: Provided , That in the exercise 
of the discretion hereby given, the said Consular officers shall be gov¬ 
erned by such general or special regulations, or instructions, as may 
from time to time be established or given by the Secretary of State.” 

Nothing contained either in the enactment of 1863, or in any previous 
legislation, distinctly imposed upon consular officers the responsibility 
and duty of deciding whether or not the actual and true value had been 
declared in the invoice, but the law of 1865 did, more distinctly than 
before, put that responsibility upon Consular officers, and yet discretion 
was therein given to require, or not to require, an oath. They were, 
nevertheless, to be governed by such regulations, or instructions, as 
might be given by the Secretary of State, who did, immediately after 
the enactment of 1865, instruct all Consular officers in this language: 

“It is therefore manifestly but proper that those officers be held re¬ 
sponsible for any want of truth or correctness in the invoices certified 
by them, and they will be responsible accordingly. They will be ex¬ 
pected to keep themselves informed as to the kinds, qualities, and mar¬ 
ket value of the merchandise exported from their respective districts to 
the United States, and to see that each invoice exhibits a fair and true 
description of the merchandise to which it relates, and contains a true 
statement of the prices of value thereof. For this purpose they may, 
whenever they deem it expedient , require the oath of the person presenting 
the invoices, or of the shippers, owners, or manufacturers of the mer¬ 
chandise, to their correctness; and may even, if necessary, examine 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XI 


under oath such persons or others whose statements would he of value,, 
upon any matters calculated to satisfy the mind of the officers upon the 
general subject of inquiry. They were, however, admonished to em¬ 
barrass or interfere with the course of legitimate trade as little as is 
compatible with the protection of the revenue and all honest traders 
against the practices of the unscrupulous; and they are therefore ex¬ 
pected to observe great prudence and circumspection in their actions in 
order to avoid the just complaint of such interference.” Section 1715 
of the Revised Statutes declares that 11 no consular officer shall certify 
any invoice unless he is satisfied that the person making oath thereto is 
the person he represents himself to be, that he is a credible person, and 
that the statements made in such oath are true. He shall thereupon by 
his certificate state that he was so satisfied,” and section 5442 punishes 
by fine and imprisonment any consular officer “who knowingly and 
falsely certifies to any invoice.” 

The law of 1823 declared that for each verification, and certificate of 
an invoice, by a Consular agent, the fee shall be two dollars and fifty 
cents, ($2.50.) That is now the law. The State Department regulations 
direct that the three triplicates be considered one invoice in that regard. 
That declaration is repeated in section 2851 of the Revised Statutes, 
which is supplemented by section 716 (enacted in 1869) which also de¬ 
clares that if any Consular officers shall demand or receive, for anything 
done in verification or certification of an invoice, or permit any clerk of 
subordinate to demand or receive any greater sum therein, than two 
dollars and fifty cents, ($2.50,) he shall be punished by fine and im¬ 
prisonment, and removal from office. My inference is that neither the 
law of 1865, nor the instructions of Consular officers issued thereunder 
by the Department of State, contemplate an oath to be administered by 
any other than a Consular officer unless it should so happen that no such 
officer could be had. It is confirmed by the authority given in section 
1750 of the Revised Statutes to every Consular officer “whenever he is 
required or deems it necessary or proper so to do,” to administer, or 
take, from any person an oath, and to perform any notarial act which 
any notary public is required, or authorized, by law to do within the 
United States. Such oath is therein declared to be as valid, within the 
United States, as if administered therein, and that the offence of perjury 
can be predicated thereon. 

Shortly after I came to the Treasury Department, my attention was 
called to complaints by shippers that in London, and elsewhere in Great 
Britain, they were compelled to pay for verification and certification of 
invoices a sum largely in excess of that prescribed by the Statute. 
I found on inquiry, that, after 1868-9, the practice had prevailed in 


XII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

our Consular offices in the United Kingdom of sending a shipper to a 
British notarial officer for the administration of an oath, and that the ship¬ 
per was generally compelled to pay a sum not less, and often more than one 
dollar and twelve cents ($1.12) for such administration, in addition to the 
two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) authorized by the Statute. It was repre¬ 
sented to me that this additional large tax upon each shipment prevented 
the legalization of invoices, and inconvenienced the administration of the 
the customs revenue in New York, and other large ports. The law gener¬ 
ally forbids any merchandise to be admitted to entry unless accompanied 
by a legalized invoice, but a discretion is vested in the Collector of the 
port, under the general instructions of the Treasury Department, to ad¬ 
mit, nevertheless, merchandise of a relatively small amount, and under 
proper circumstances without a legalized invoice. The excessive tax de¬ 
manded for consular verification and authentication naturally increased 
the number of importations without a legalized invoice, and thus not 
only was the revenue inconvenienced, but receipts from the regular con¬ 
sular fee of two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) were diminished. With 
increasing facilities in this country for ordering small parcels of mer¬ 
chandise from European cities, and quickly bringing them to this 
country, the number of such relatively small importations increase, and 
it is obviously for the interest of the Government that they be accom¬ 
panied by a formal and legalized invoice. 

The circumstances under which the practice of levying this additional 
tax for an oath grew up in London and elsewhere, will be found exhibited 
(pages 352, 355, et seq .) in the accompanying documents. The relation 
of this excessive tax levied indirectly by certain Consular officers in 
Great Britain will be found significantly mentioned in an Ex. House 
Doc. No. 145, 3d Session XLII Congress. On May 19, 1881, a resolution 
of inquiry was presented in the Senate, asking the Department of State 
whether or not “any consul-general, consul or commercial agent, has 
been personally benefited thereby, and if so, to what extent.” The 
reply of the Department of State, (Ex. Senate Doc. No. 122, 1st Session 
XLVII Congress) contains a full presentation of the general subject of 
consular fees for the verification and authentication of invoices, but omits 
to answer the most pertinent portion of the Senate inquiry. 

The whole sum levied in the United Kingdom, in excess of the statute 
fee, has however been considered by one of the Special Agents of the 
Treasury (p. 353) in response to my specific inquiry, and it appeal's 
therefrom that there was levied on shippers to this country, during the 
fiscal year that ended on June 30, 1885, the great sum of eighty-three 
thousand five hundred and sixty-eight dollars and ten cents, ($83,568.10.) 
The total number of invoices certified at the London Consulate, during 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XIII 


the tour fiscal years from 1882 to 1885, inclusive, having been eighty - 
three thousand seven hundred and eleven, (83,711,) the total sum ex¬ 
acted was ninety-two thousand and eighty-two dollars and ten cents, 
($92,082.10.) At Belfast, and its agencies, four thousand three hundred 
and sixty-two (4,362) invoices were certified last year. If the number 
of invoices certified at London, and in the United Kingdom, since 1868, 
was as indicated, an estimate can be made of the vast sums exacted, 
and of the benefit received by Consular officers on an arrangement like 
that reported as made at Bradford. Not a dollar of that large sum has 
really and appreciably benefited this Government, or been covered 
into its Treasury. 

If the sum total of that large tax inflicted upon shippers, and ulti¬ 
mately paid by American consumers, could have been expended by the 
Treasury Department in the employment of experts at different points 
in Great Britain, to actually verify invoice values, something of good 
might possibly have been accomplished for the revenue, but under the 
notarial-oath system little has been accomplished for the revenue but 
injury. It appears from the Senate document last referred to, that 
generally on the Continent of Europe oaths are, for the reasons therein 
specified, not required by our Consuls on invoices. 

I have been unable to discover a well-authenticated case of prosecu¬ 
tion for perjury, or for a false oath, in the verification, or authentica¬ 
tion, of invoices abroad, or indeed in our custom-houses at home. It is 
extremely doubtful whether in Great Britain a prosecution would be 
attempted, or would be successful if attempted. The crime of perjury 
would be, as I am advised, difficult to lay and prove in legal form, even 
if a foreign government would promote, or tolerate in its jurisdiction, 
a prosecution for an offence against the tariff law of the United States. 
But, while advising that the notarial oath be dispensed with, I would 
have Consular officers compelled to be more careful and vigilant in ac¬ 
quainting shippers with what our laws require an invoice to contain, 
and in admonishing them of the great perils that will await their mer¬ 
chandise in the United States if the invoice shall be found to be false 
in any essential particular. Excepting in a few places in which the 
manufacture of a limited number of products embraces the industry 
of the locality, it will be well nigh impossible for a Consular officer, no 
matter how alert and conscientious, to form a safe opinion in regard to 
the correctness of all invoices without an actual inspection of the mer¬ 
chandise. To rely upon samples presented by a dishonest shipper may 
be very misleading. In the large cities of Europe, where fifty, or sev¬ 
enty, or even an hundred invoices may in one day be presented to the 
Consul, covering every variety of merchandise it will of course be im- 


XIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

possible for Consular officers, no matter liow expert in values, to ad¬ 
equately inspect the merchandise. It may well be doubted whether the 
foreign governments, that will not permit an oath to be* administered 
by an American Consul, even although their own Consuls freely admin¬ 
ister oaths in Yew York and in our jurisdiction, will tolerate a deten¬ 
tion of merchandise by American Consular officers long enough for 
such a careful inspection thereof. Consular officers can, however, in¬ 
form, instruct, admonish, and so somewhat deter shippers from making 
false invoices. That work they should be required to diligently per¬ 
form, and not leave it to be done, in a perfunctory way, by subordi¬ 
nates, as is so much of Consular verification. 

The Consular service of the United States is not, and cannot well be, 
under the immediate superintendence of the Treasury Department. 
The rights to be held, and the duties to be performed, by Consular 
officers in a foreign country, are regulated by treaty, or by international 
law. Our Consular officers are necessarily, therefore, under the imme¬ 
diate control abroad of our Diplomatic Agents. It is, for that reason, 
most fit and proper that the superintendence of Consular officers should 
be committed to the Department of State. But the legislation of Con¬ 
gress has not been quite logical, or consistent, in that behalf, inasmuch 
as while Consular officers are generally directed by law to make their 
reports to the Department of State, they are, here and there, as in sec¬ 
tion 1715 of the Devised Statutes, required to make reports to the Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury. The sending abroad of Special' Agents of the 
Treasury, to advise with and assist Consular officers, has not worked 
altogether satisfactorily, owing in part, perhaps, to the fact that the 
two classes of officers were subordinates of different Departments and 
thereby were naturally created inconvenient jealousies and rivalries. 

I do not in what I now say, concern myself with any aspect of the 
Consular service excepting that which relates to the customs revenue, 
and to the interests of navigation which are especially committed to the 
Treasury Department, but in respect to the adequate protection of both 
of those interests I have a very decided conviction that our Consular 
service needs immediate reformation. 

The whole cost of that service for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1885, 
was $870,183,10 5 the whole sum received for official fees during that 
period was $791,345.43, and thereof $699,852 were paid by shippers 
to Consular officers on the verification of invoices, exclusive always of 
the large sums paid as unofficial fees to British notarial officers on the 
same account. Thus it will be seen that the cost of our imperfect Con¬ 
sular service to the Treasury was $78,837.55 in 1885 in excess of its total 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XV 

receipts. During the fiscal year 1883, the total amount of Consular fees 
received amounted to nine hundred and twenty-six thousand and fifty - 
lour dollars and ninety-five cents ($926,054.95) and the total cost was only 
$870,290.60; in 1884 to nine hundred and eight thousand nine hundred 
and thirty-two dollars and thirty-two cents, ($908,932.32,) and the total 
cost was only $872,345.08, but the receipts were in 1885 only seven hun¬ 
dred and ninety-one thousand three hundred and forty-five dollars and 
forty-three cents, ($791,345.43.) The large falling off may be accounted 
for by the fact that the fees for services to American vessels in 1884 
were ninety-one thousand and thirty-one dollars and eighty-six cents, 
(91,031.86,) which class of fees was abolished by the law of June 26, 
1884. There was also a diminution of consular fees for certifying in¬ 
voices amounting to fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven 
dollars, ($58,937.) 

The existing system of Consular fees works badly for the customs 
revenue in this sense : The tariff law requires that each invoice of mer¬ 
chandise shall be produced to a Consular officer “ nearest the place of 
shipment 7 7 which place may not necessarily be the place where the mer¬ 
chandise, if imported from across the sea, is actually put on board ship, 
but the place where the merchandise has been prepared for exportation 
hither, and its journey is actually to begin. Thus the place of shipment 
of goods manufactured, or produced, at Manchester, in England, and 
put on board ship at Liverpool, is not Liverpool but Manchester, and 
to the American Consular office at Manchester the invoice should be 
produced. The purpose of the law is to subject the invoice to the scru¬ 
tiny of a Consular officer “ nearest 77 the place where it was manufact¬ 
ured, or actually purchased. The frequent violations by Consular 
officers of the distinct commands of Congress, and of the Department of 
State, in this regard, constrained, on January 20, 1881, the sending by 
that Department of a very peremxfiory circular letter of complaint and 
admonition, in which it was said that Consular officers became rivals of 
one another in obtaining invoices for authentication. There was a 
scramble for fees! The motive and inducement of this rivalry were 
those statute fees, or the notarial fees by which the Consular officers 
either directly or indirectly benefited. Whether or not it be feasible 
to remedy this evil which is now in existence, by any modification of 
the existing Statute, I respectfully submit to Congress. 

I also especially invite the attention of Congress to the disclosures 
made in the accompanying documents (p. 425) in respect to the charac¬ 
ter of a part of the Consular service in the Dominion of Canada, and its 
relation to that long frontier which separates the two countries. 


XVI 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In the Manual of Regulations and Instructions prescribed in 1881 for 
the information and government of Consular officers, there are (pp. 581, 
582) forms of declaration to be made where merchandise has been pur¬ 
chased, and also where merchandise is consigned by a manufacturer. 
These two forms follow with perfect precision the language of the law. 
There is also the form (No. 140) of a certificate to be attached by the con¬ 
sular officer, and that certificate is required to declare “that the actual 
market value or wholesale prices of the goods, wares, and merchandise in 
the said invoice, in the principal markets of the country, and at the 
time of exportation, are correct and true.” This certificate, it will be 
seen, does not relate to the same place nor to the same time as does the 
declaration to be made either by the purchaser or the manufacturer. 
The former relates to the time and place of purchase ; the latter relates 
to the time and place of manufacture ; but the consular certificate is 
made to relate to “the principal markets of the country and at the time 
of exportation. ’ ? The time of exportation may be different from the 
time of purchase, or the time of manufacture. This certificate of the 
Consul seems intended to cover the time and place which the Appraisers 
are to ascertain, instead of the time and place which the Statute requires 
in invoices. 

My opinion is that one effect of the legislation by Congress, and the 
instructions by the Department of State, which placed such duties and 
responsibilities upon Consular officers in the verification and authenti¬ 
cation of invoices, has been to lead shippers who aro abroad, as well as 
appraising officers who are at home, to look, or to pretend to look, upon 
Consular officers as in effect Customs Appraisers in a foreign country, 
whose verifications of invoice values are to be received with a credit, 
and authority, which they really do not, and cannot, deserve. As it is 
now, the shipper misleads Consular officers, and they, in consequence, 
mislead Appraising officers, who return false values and classifications 
to the Collectors. 


THE ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE. 

The Consular verification of an invoice having been completed, and 
the Consular certificate attached thereto, and the document delivered to 
the shipper, the next step in the law of importation is the presentation 
of that invoice to the Collector of the port at which the merchandise is 
to be entered by the person authorized to make the paper, prescribed 
by the Statute, and defined as an “entry.” The work of boarding ar¬ 
riving vessels when within the revenue jurisdiction of the United States; 
of presenting a manifest of the cargo by the Master; of unlading the 


REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 


XVII 


cargo under the superintendence of the inspector; of warehousing ; of 
keeping custody of the merchandise in the public stores; of sending desig¬ 
nated packages to the appraisers for examination; of prelimi nary estimate 
of duties; of taking the money receivable therefor; and of final liqui¬ 
dation on the appraisers’ report, appears to be now fairly well done, ex¬ 
cepting the cartage on delivery orders. Whatever defective adminis¬ 
tration there may be does not require, it is believed, legislative action 
for its remedy, but is a subject for executive reform. The important 
and most essential business, however, of weighing, measuring, gauging 
and ascertaining actual tare, upon the wharves, or in public stores, is 
not satisfactorily done. But here again there does not appear, at 
present, to be need of additional legislation. What is needed are per. 
sons more vigilant, trustworthy and incorruptible in the ascertaining 
weights and measures on whose returns the Collector levies duty. At 
the larger ports, the Surveyor is, under the direction of the Collector, 
charged with the superintendence of inspectors, weighers, gaugers and 
measurers, but since the merchandise to be thus tested is scattered along 
the wharves, among so many widely-separated places, an actual, visual, 
supervision by him, or his Deputies, of each weigher, gauger and meas¬ 
urer, while ascertaining quantities, is of course physically impossible. 
If the Surveyor is active and thorough, and, for good reason, a weigher, 
gauger, or measurer, is unsatisfactory to him, the best, and indeed the 
only way, to maintain good conduct at that point in the customs service, 
is to make a prompt removal of the unsatisfactory person, even though 
the reasons for dissatisfaction may not be of a character to be adequately 
expressed in writing, or to be publicly exhibited. If a Surveyor is 
really alert and competent, an inspector, or weigher, or gauger, or meas¬ 
urer, should not be kept in office if the former, and the Collector, hon¬ 
estly suspect that such important work is dishonestly, or even carelessly 
done. 

The declarations very recently made, in reply to my inquiries, by 
the Naval Officer at the Port of New York, in respect to the taking of 
gratuities from importers, or their agents, by persons employed in the 
Collector’s department, have not escaped my attention. The practice, 
to which I shall again allude, is a vicious one in every aspect, and, if it 
exists, as it probably does, it must be arrested, if for no other reason, 
because the law forbids it. But here, as in so many other departments 
of the customs service, there is a difficulty in obtaining satisfactory evi¬ 
dence. Those who suffer by the practice are naturally unwilling to 
make representations to the chief officers unless they can feel that 
prompt punishment will be inflicted. And here again, I can think of 
no other efficient remedy, but the prompt dismissal from office of such 
( 2 ) 


XVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

inculpated persons, even though the dismissing officer may not make 
public the reason for the dismissal, or the evidence which compels it. 
A plea, or an excuse, for the taking of such gratuities by servants of 
the customs has been, and is, that the service is rendered, it may be, 
out of office-hours, in the liquidation of entries, or in the preparation of* 
other papers, or in some other way. But even if that were literally true, 
the relation thus established between the Government-servant and the 
importer, or customs broker, or attorney, is an improper and demoraliz¬ 
ing one, which is intolerable in every aspect, and which I shall endeavor 
to bring to an end even if servants or officers, otherwise useful and valu¬ 
able, are summarily expelled from the service. The practice of be¬ 
stowing such gratuities in its application to clerks in the Auditor’s 
office in New York, who are charged with the preparation of statements 
of refunds to be made upon protests to collectors and appeals to this 
Department, or in obedience to the judgments of courts, is especially 
dangerous and reprehensible. 

The law of 1842, (Rev. Stats., sec. 2901,) requires a Collector, when 
an invoice is presented to him on entry, to designate on the invoice at 
least one package, and one package at least of every ten, and a greater 
number should he deem it necessary, to be sent to the public stores for 
examination, to be opened, examined and appraised as a fair sample 
of all the merchandise contained on the invoice of that class. Here¬ 
tofore frauds upon the revenue have been committed by collusion be¬ 
tween the importer and the Collector’s office in designating packages 
for examination by the appraisers, which did not fairly represent the 
quality and value of the other packages which are described on the in¬ 
voice as of a similar class. Of course it is impracticable to send to the 
Appraiser’s stores for examination, as a general rule, all of the arriving 
packages. I am gratified to believe that an arrangement has been per¬ 
fected, certainly at New York, by which dishonesty of that character 
cannot easily be successful. 

APPRAISEMENT. 

The weakest point at present in the customs-revenue service, and under 
the existing complicated tariff law, is, as I have already said, at the 
beginning of the process of importation, and in the preparation, verifi¬ 
cation, and authentication of invoices. That work is done in a foreign 
country. The next weakest point, at present, is, in my opinion, in the 
appraising branch of the service. The weakness at the former point is, 
however, more serious and injurious even than at the latter point, for 
so long as the existing law (Rev. Stats., sec. 2900) which forbids any 


REPORT OF TIJE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XIX 


Collector to assess duty 1 i upon an amount less than the invoice or entered 
value” is in force, the customs revenues provided by Congress cannot 
be seriously impaired by appraisement, if no merchandise is admitted 
to entry without a true invoice, and if all invoices fairly and truly rep¬ 
resent the actual cost of purchased goods, and the market value of mer¬ 
chandise consigned by the manufacturer, or producer. 

The existing system of appraisement at the several ports has been one 
of slow growth, and has been subject to many legislative changes. Up 
to 1823, the invoice, accompanied by the oath of the person making 
entry, was generally accepted by the Collector as truly declaring the 
dutiable value. But in that year, after the increased duties imposed in 
1816, and under the conviction that merchandise was often undervalued 
in the invoice, official appraisers were authorized and appointed to ex¬ 
amine the merchandise and report the dutiable value to the Collector. 
By the law of. 1823, the two Government Appraisers first fixed the value 
and then, on appeal, two merchants designated by the importer, were 
united with the same Government Aj>praisers; and, finally, on a second 
appeal, the Secretary of the Treasury closed the dispute. That law was 
modified, among other years, in 1828, 1830, 1832, 1842, 1851, 1865, and 
1866. This last-named enactment of July 27, 1866, (14 U. S. Stats, at 
Large, 302,) has been distributed among different sections of the Re vised 
Statutes, and is substantially to-day the law regulating appraisements 
at the Port of New York. Other sections of the Revised Statutes regu¬ 
late such matters at the other ports; but the system, excepting in some 
instances the designation of officers, is substantially the same. 

In the accompanying document (p. 287) will be found a concise tabu¬ 
lated statement of the manner in which classes of merchandise are dis¬ 
tributed among different divisions of the Appraiser’s office at the Port 
of New York, together with the designation, the number, and the sala¬ 
ries of the chief persons whose work it is to examine, appraise and 
report to the Collector. 

In New York, when the Collector has designated on the invoices the 
packages for examination and appraisement, and has marked distinctly 
thereon the rate at which duties have been estimated in a preliminary 
way on the several articles therein specified, the invoice, together with 
necessary stamps and other indications thereon, is sent to the Appraiser, 
who, in turn, sends it to the proper assistant appraiser, who, in turn, 
sends it to the proper examiner, who directs persons, called openefs and 
packers, to expose the merchandise to his view. 

The accompanying documents clearly tend to establish the fact that, 
as a general rule in New York, and probably in the other large ports, 


XX REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

the Examiner is the only officer who actually examines the merchan¬ 
dise, and is, therefore, in fact, the appraising officer. The law is specific 
that the Collector shall send for examination to the Appraiser not less 
than one package of every invoice, and one package out of every ten 
packages, and the inference therefrom clearly is, that to make a valid 
appraisement, the contents of each and all of those packages must be 
actually seen, and examined, by the proper appraising officer in order 
to make a valid appraisement. Congress has by the existing law on the 
subject authorized the appointment in New York of one Appraiser who 
is to u direct and supervise ” the appraisement and “ cause to be duly re¬ 
ported to the Collector the true value thereof as required by law.” 
The number of invoices sent by the Collector to the Appraiser at New 
York in the year 1884, was two hundred and five thousand seven hun¬ 
dred and sixty-two, (205,762.) It was therefore a physical impossi¬ 
bility for the Appraiser to examine and appraise, in person, the mer¬ 
chandise covered by those invoices. Indeed the executive business of 
the Appraiser’s office at that port which must be performed by the 
Appraiser in person is so vast, including correspondence with the Col¬ 
lector and with the Treasury Department, that the Appraiser can, in 
fact, be little more than a general director and supervisor of the business, 
and a reporter of values to the Collector which have been found by his 
subordinates. In appreciation of that fact, the law of 1866 authorized 
the appointment of not more than ten (10) Assistant Appraisers at that 
port, “who shall be employed in appraising goods according to law? 
under the direction and supervision of the Appraiser, and in reporting 
to him the true value thereof according to law.” Such report is subject 
to revision and correction by the Appraiser, and, when approved by 
him, is to be transmitted to the Collector, and is to be taken to be the 
appraisement by the United States Local Appraiser of the District. 

The second section of the appraisement law of March 3,1851, (9 Stats, 
at Large, 630,) declared “that the certificate of any one of the Appraisers 
of the United States, of the dutiable value of any imported merchan¬ 
dise required to be appraised, shall be deemed and taken to be the ap¬ 
praisement of such merchandise required by existing laws to be made 
by such Appraiser.” The quoted portion of that law was substantially 
in Eev. Stats., sec. 2950; and the Customs Regulations of 1884, issued 
by the Treasury Department, declared, (Art. 455,) that “the cer¬ 
tificate of any one of the Assistant Appraisers at the port is to be 
deemed and taken to be the legal appraisement of imported merchan¬ 
dise required to be made by such Appraisers.” If there were no assist¬ 
ant appraisers in 1851, the statutory source from which this article, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XXI 


making the certificate of an assistant to be a legal appraisement, is not 
apparent. 

The fourth section of the law of 1866 enacted that in lieu of the clerks 
now employed in the examination and inspection and appraisement of 
merchandise at the Port of New York, the Secretary of the Treasury 
may, on the nomination of the Appraiser, appoint such number of Ex¬ 
aminers as said Secretary may deem necessary, their compensation to 
be fixed by him, and not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars 
($2,500) per year for each. The duty of such Examiners is “to aid each 
of said Assistant Appraisers in the examination, inspection, and appraise¬ 
ment of goods, wares and merchandise according to law. 77 By the same 
section, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to appoint on the 
nomination of the Appraiser, the clerks, verifiers, samplers, openers, 
packers and messengers in the Appraiser’s office, and to fix their num¬ 
ber* and compensation. 

My own inference, from the language employed by Congress in this 
appraising law of 1866, is that the Assistant Appraiser must personally 
examine the articles he appraises, and the value of which he reports to 
the Appraiser. But the weight of the testimony in the accompanying 
documents seems clearly to indicate that, as a rule, it is only the Exam¬ 
iner who actually inspects the merchandise. To be sure the law says 
that the Examiner shall u aid each of said assistant appraisers in the 
examination, inspection and appraisement; 77 but did the law intend 
that the appraisement should be made on the inspection of the merchan¬ 
dise by the Examiner alone ? Do the language of the law, the mode 
of appointment of such Examiners in contrast with the mode of appoint¬ 
ment of the Appraiser and the Assistant Appraiser, and the limit of 
salary to be paid to such Examiners, indicate that such critical and 
delicate work is to be left to the unaided discretion and judgment of 
Examiners? 

Without an actual inspection of the merchandise, there cannot be a 
true appraisement. If neither the Assistant Appraiser, nor the Ap¬ 
praiser, thus inspects, is the appraisement valid under existing law 
unless the importer waives the irregularity ? I respectfully present this 
subject to the immediate consideration of Congress, with the suggestion 
that if such vast responsibilities are to be placed upon Examiners, the 
intelligence, the experience in foreign markets, and the character of the 
force of Examiners at the Port of New York need to be materially en¬ 
larged, strengthened and increased. 

There are now seventy-three (73) Examiners in the Appraiser’s office 
at New York, including sixteen (16) employed in the laboratory who 


XXII EEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASUEY. 

make chemical examinations and assays of samples sent to them from 
the several divisions, and test sugars by the polariscope. Of the fifty, 
(50,) or thereabouts, who inspect and appraise merchandise, I find on in¬ 
quiry that not one-half have been employed in the business of importa¬ 
tion, or in buying and selling articles similar to those which they ex¬ 
amine. Many of those who have been promoted, either by competitive 
civil-service examination or otherwise, to be Examiners, and Assistant 
Appraisers, entered the service as clerks, or in a subordinate capacity, 
and have had no experience in importing, or jobbing, or even in the 
retail business. The few Examiners who may have been, many years, 
ago, large dealers, or small dealers, in articles like those which they 
now appraise, cannot, if continually engaged in the appraising office at 
New York, have had experience at home, or abroad, in buying and sell¬ 
ing. The law of 1866 declares that the Appraiser “ shall be practically 
acquainted with the quality and value of some one or more of the 
chief articles of importation subject to appraisement.” The qualifica¬ 
tion of each Assistant Appraiser is described in the same language. 
The Examiner must be ” practically and thoroughly acquainted with the 
character, quality and value of the article, or articles, in the examina¬ 
tion and appraisement of which he is “to be employed” to aid the As¬ 
sistant Appraiser. 

I have learned by inquiry respecting the range of salaries paid in 
New York by the large importing and jobbing houses in the city, that 
those who are deemed competent to successfully buy merchandise abroad, 
or at home, receive twice, or even three times, as much as is the range 
of salaries paid to Examiners in the New York Custom-House who ex¬ 
amine similar articles. In addition, a few of the large houses pay a 
pension to those of their faithful clerks, or agents, who have become 
old, or physically incapacitated, in service. 

If the existing complicated rates of duty now levied upon imported 
merchandise are not to be simplified and made easier of application, and 
if Examiners are to be the responsible appraising officers who alone in¬ 
spect the merchandise, then there needs to be, I think, an immediate 
legislative reorganization of the Appraiser’s office at New York, and the 
infusion of larger mercantile experience and more self-confidence in de¬ 
termining foreign values. 

Under the existing system, the shipper and maker of the invoice 
have too much control in fixing the dutiable value of the importation, 
for their declaration of value is, as a rule, accepted by Consular officers, 
and their certificate is as a rule accepted by Examiners. The law 
(Rev. Stats., sec. 2902) distinctly declares that it “shall be the duty of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXIII 


the Appraisers to ascertain, estimate and appraise the true and actual 
market value and wholesale price, any invoice or affidavit , thereto to the 
contrary notwithstanding , of the merchandise at the time of exportation 
in the principal markets of the country whence the same has been im¬ 
ported into the United States. 77 But by reason of the requirement that 
the Collector shall not levy duty upon less than the invoice or entered 
value, the habit began many years ago, as I am informed, of simply re¬ 
porting to the Collector, “ Value Correct, 77 unless there be something 
to excite suspicion against the integrity of the invoice. The attention 
of neither the Assistant Appraiser nor the Appraiser seems to be called 
to an importation, unless under circumstances which induce the Exam¬ 
iner to advance, or raise, the invoice value; which is confirmation of 
the opinion that the value stated in the invoice practically controls the 
judgment, in nine cases out of ten, of the appraising officers. The strain 
of the responsibility, therefore, of detecting and of reporting fraud, 
undervaluation, or error in the invoices, is upon the subordinates instead 
of the chief officers in the Appraiser’s department. 

The Revised Statutes (Sec. 2922) empower the Appraisers to call before 
them, and examine upon oath, any person, touching anything material 
in ascertaining the market value, or wholesale price, of imported mer¬ 
chandise, and to require the production on oath of any letters, accounts, 
or invoices, in his possession, relating to the same, but, under the ex¬ 
isting practice in New York, that process for ascertaining the truth 
would not be put in motion excepting upon the suggestion of one of the 
inferior appraising officers. 

The accompanying documents will give to Congress satisfactory in¬ 
formation, it is hoped, respecting the contention which raged at the 
Port of New York, last summer, between the agents and consignees of 
certain foreign manufacturers, and the Special Agents of the Treasury 
Department, who, it must be said, bore the burden of the contest in 
behalf of the Government, and in vindication of the law. Some of 
the aspects of the controversy I have already mentioned in what I have 
said about invoices,—their verification and authentication. While 
Congress has required that the invoice of merchandise consigned by the 
maker shall contain the “actual market value 77 thereof at the time and 
place when and where the same was procured or manufactured, the Ap¬ 
praisers are “to ascertain, estimate and appraise the true and actual 
market value and wholesale price at the time of exportation, and in the 
principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported 
into the United States. 77 The shippers of the merchandise referred to, 
and their agents in New York, insisted that the merchandise had, at 
the time and place of manufacture, no “actual market value, 77 for the 


XXIV 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


reason that the manufacturers, or owners, refused to sell it to any one 
for shipment to the United States. The eighth section of the Tariff 
Law of 1818 has a phrase, used by the Congress of that day, which 
seems to anticipate this very contention set up nearly three-fourths of 
a century afterwards. • By that section, the manufacturer, on making- 
entry, was required to swear that the prices charged in the invoice “are 
the current value of the same at the place of manufacture, and such as 
he or they would have received if the same had been there sold in the usual 
course of traded ’ The Supreme Court, in its opinion in Cliquot Cham¬ 
pagne, modified the phrase by saying that the “actual market value” 
of the law of 1863 was the price whicfi, it is believed, the manufacturer 
would have been willing to receive. As a way out of this apparent 
difficulty, Congress, in 1883, (22 Stats, at Large, 525,) declared that when 
the Appraiser (not an Assistant or Examiner) could not ascertain, to 
his own satisfaction, the true and actual market value, or wholesale 
price of merchandise, it shall then be lawful to appraise the same “by 
ascertaining the cost or value of the materials composing such mer¬ 
chandise, at the time and place of manufacture, together with the ex¬ 
pense of manufacturing, preparing and putting up suoh merchandise 
for shipment, and in no case shall the value of such goods, wares or 
merchandise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascer¬ 
tained.” This modification is calculated to increase the efforts of man¬ 
ufacturers, and consignors, to conceal the price at which they really 
hold abroad the merchandise, and expect to receive as a result of the 
consignment to this country, and to compel the appraising officers to 
make investigation into the materials of manufacture, and cost, for 
which few of them have the necessary experience. A more conscien¬ 
tious and vigorous service by Consular officers abroad and by Apprais¬ 
ing officers at home, aided, if the existing rates of duty are to be main¬ 
tained, by adequate legislation calculated to deter shippers from the 
preparation and presentation of false invoices will, in my opinion, make 
more apparent the “market value and wholesale price,” as that phrase 
is used in our revenue law. 

There is somewhat of conflict of opinion between the Special Agents of 
the Treasury Department, and the Appraiser at New York, in regard 
to the fidelity and correctness with which values, are now reported to 
the Collector. The differences between them may be reconciled by 
bearing in mind that, under the existing system, the opinions of the 
Appraiser are necessarily colored by the views of the Examiners. 

I am quite willing to believe that much of the undervaluation that 
has existed at the port of New York, came of rivalry in buying and 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XXV 


selling, rather than of a motive to defraud the Government. And yet 
one cannot well shut his eyes to the fact that good men, who are obedient 
to other laws, do sometimes deal as if they felt that evasion of the existing 
tariff law is pardonable. Why is it so? A very little evasion in the 
payment of money which ought to go to the Government as duties may, 
in the strife of buying and selling imported staple articles, make the 
difference between a profit on one hand or a loss on the other, and may 
enable a successful evader of duties to outstrip and outsell all .rivals in 
the same line of merchandise. It will be to the discredit of the Govern¬ 
ment if importers doing business at the ports to which a certain de¬ 
scription of merchandise is not consigned by manufacturers, and who 
endeavor to buy abroad, shall be injured, or driven out of their business 
of real importation, because of the failure of Congress, or of the Execu¬ 
tive, to make dutiable values, and to levy and collect duties, uniform at 
all places and for all persons throughout the United States.. 

REAPPRAISMENT. 

I have already alluded to the investigations, set on foot by my im¬ 
mediate predecessor and myself, into the methods of reappraisal at the 
Port of New York. Congress has required the Executive to ascertain 
and fix the dutiable value of all imported merchandise subject to ad 
valorem duty. The law has authorized the appointment of officers to 
exercise that important function, and has (Rev. Stats., sec. 2949) em¬ 
powered the Secretary of the Treasury to establish, from time to time, 
rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, to secure a just, faith¬ 
ful and impartial appraisal of the actual market value or wholesale 
price. It has provided for what is called a “local appraisement,” to 
which sufficient reference has already been made, and then, if the im¬ 
porter shall demand it, for a reappraisement to be made by a perma¬ 
nent general appraiser wherever practicable, and “a discreet and expe¬ 
rienced merchant” to be selected by the Collector, wherever that is 
practicable, or two discreet and experienced merchants who are Amer¬ 
ican citizens and familiar with the character and value of the goods in 
question. When the Appraiser has reported to the Collector an ad¬ 
vance upon the entered value, the Collector is required to notify the im¬ 
porter of such advance. If the importer be dissatisfied therewith, and 
within -twenty-four hours shall give written notice to the Collector of such 
dissatisfaction, the Collector is required to call on the Appraiser for a 
special report of the appraisement in due form, and notify him of the 
appeal. On the reception of that report, the Collector is required to 


XXVI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

select u a discreet and experienced merchant’’ to act with the General 
Appraiser and to notify both of them of the appeal, and of the time and 
place of reappraisement. The valuation having been determined, the 
reappraisers are required to report the same to the Collector according to a 
prescribed form, but if the reappraisers do not agree, they are required 
to make separate reports to the Collector who must ‘ ‘ decide between 
them.” The decision of the Collector, thus made, is final, and the du¬ 
ties are to be assessed accordingly. If the appraised value thus ascer¬ 
tained exceeds the entered value by ten (10) per cent, or more than 
ten (10) per cent., a duty of twenty (20) per cent., in addition to the 
regular duty, must be levied. 

The irregularities and improper practices which have existed at the 
Port of New York in making reappraisements are so thoroughly exhib¬ 
ited in the accompanying documents that elaborate further reference to 
them on my part is unnecessary. It is difficult to understand how these 
irregularities and improper practices could have begun, and have re¬ 
sulted, as they did, in an unseemly scuffle between importers and 
appraising officers, Special Agents of the Treasury, and local officers at 
New York. The law, and the General Regulations of the Treasury, are 
clear and adequate. 

It seems to me, after a careful examination of the reports, that nearly 
every question presented had been disposed of by my predecessors, from 
time to time during the last forty years, and the decisions published. 
I issued, however, on June 9, 1885, new instructions, (p. 98,) which 
accompany this report. After they had been published, elaborate writ¬ 
ten arguments were presented to me by legal counsel of importers who 
thought themselves aggrieved by my instructions. Therein it was 
asked: 

(1.) That the importer be permitted to be present at the reappraise¬ 
ment ; which permission had never been denied so far as I am aware. 

(2.) That the importer be permitted to support his own oath on entry, 
and, within proper limits, to confront any opposing witness by testimony. 

(3.) That he be permitted at the reappraisement to test the evidence 
offered to impeach the correctness of the value stated by him on the 
entry. 

(4.) That he be permitted to be represented by a lawyer, and to cross- 
examine witnesses. 

To the arguments, and the reference to judicial authorities, offered to 
sustain the contention of the importers, I gave careful attention, and 
took the opinions of competent experts in my Department, and at sev- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXVII 


oral of the Ports, the result of which was to confirm the correctness of 
my instructions of June 10, 1885. To those instructions I shall adhere 
until otherwise directed by competent legal authority. 

It would be impracticable for the Executive to carry on reappraise- 
ments of the value of imported merchandise by the forms and methods 
of “a law suit,” as those forms and methods are employed in judicial 
proceedings. In what relates to the commercial designation of imported 
articles, their classification for duty, and the rates of duties to be levied 
thereon, the importer has ample recourse to the judicial tribunals, but 
the ascertainment of dutiable values has, by the law, been wisely made 
purely an executive function, involving, it is true, the exercise of dis¬ 
cretion and judgment, but not on that account a judicial function in the 
sense in which the Federal Constitution has distributed powers among 
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Departments. 

To aid the Collector, in selecting “ a discreet and experienced mer¬ 
chant,” the Treasury regulations require the Appraiser to submit to 
the Collector the names of suitable persons, but it appeal's, from the 
reports made to me, that this important work was by the Appraiser 
delegated to an Examiner, and that the Collector, instead of himself 
exercising his most important function, was in the habit of com m itting 
it to a Deputy in palpable disregard of the obligations of official duty. 

A wrangle took place at the Port of New York as to whether the 
“discreet and experienced merchant” must be an importer, or could be 
a jobber of merchandise similar to that under investigation. It was 
even seriously contended by importers, and apparently conceded by 
some local officers of the customs at New York, that it would not be 
possible to find in New York a “discreet and experienced merchant” 
competent to appraise a certain class of merchandise brought into that 
port and sold, in great quantities. The immediate predecessor of the 
present Collector, on instructions from this Department, took the selec¬ 
tion of a merchant appraiser into his own hands. 

In a system of ad valorem rates there are two critical points: One is 
dutiable value, and the other is rate of duty. The present rate of duty 
on certain silk goods is fifty (50) per cent, of the market value at the 
time of exportation in the principal markets of the country, or what is 
equivalent to one-half of the importation. If the law were so administered 
by the Treasury Department that on the importation of one importer, 
fifty (50) per cent, was levied, and on the importation of another importer 
forty (40) per cent., and on that of another importer thirty (30) per cent., 
there would be a general outcry. So there would be if an importer at 
New York was required to pay only thirty (30) per cent., and if of an- 


XXVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

other at Buffalo was demanded forty (40) per cent, and of another at 
Chicago was required fifty (50) per cent. But a none the less illegal and 
intolerable result would follow if the dutiable value on one importation 
were fixed at one hundred dollars, ($100;) on another, by the same ves¬ 
sel, at eighty dollars, ($80,) and on another by the same vessel at sixty 
dollars, ($60,) the merchandise in all of the three being similar. If 
importers can illegally control dutiable values, they can control the 
amount of duties paid on the merchandise, although the ad valorem rate 
may be fixed and uniform for everybody and every port in the country. 

A variance of opinion and practice having arisen among customs 
officers in the application of the seventh section of the tariff law of 
March 3, 1883, a conference of those officers was assembled in that year 
to consider the subject and those officers not having agreed in their 
views, my careful predecessor, Mr. Folger, applied to the whole sub¬ 
ject his eminent learning and tried judicial experience, and prepared 
an elaborate opinion, dated September 27, 1883, wherein he decided: 

“The dutiable value of the goods is the actual market value, or the 
wholesale price thereof in the condition of finish and preparation for 
sale in which they are finally offered by the foreign merchant to nego¬ 
tiating customers, and for which they will and do sell them, though 
that value or price be enhanced because of that finish and preparation, 
and though a part of the preparation consists in placing in or upon or 
about the goods, boxes, cartons, and paper cards or other like things.’’ 

The question was afterwards referred to the Department of Justice for 
examination, and on January 11, 1884, the Attorney-General gave an 
opinion, in which that officer substantially concurred in the reasoning, 
and in the conclusion, of the Secretary of the Treasury, and said: 

“The cost of boxes or coverings with which goods are ordinarily pre¬ 
pared for sale in foreign markets, and in which they are usually sold 
and purchased there (the price paid for the goods including the box or 
covering which goes therewith to the purchaser) must be regarded as 
entering into, or as being an element of, the actual market value of the 
goods. Section 7 of the act of 1883 does not forbid the inclusion in the 
dutiable value of merchandise of that which forms a constituent of its 
actual market value. Hence the dutiable value of goods usually pre¬ 
pared for sale as above, and those usually sold in the foreign market, is 
their current or actual market value, or wholesale price, in such mar¬ 
ket, as enhanced in the preparation thereof for sale in the manner re¬ 
ferred to.” 

On January 18, 1884, this Department published the opinion of the 
Attorney-General “for the information and guidance of Customs Offi¬ 
cers.” 

On May 13, 1885, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis¬ 
trict of Oregon decided that the value of barrels in which Portland 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XXIX 


Cement is imported cannot be added to the wholesale price of the latter 
as an element of its dutiable value. 

On August 20. 1855, Judge Wallace, in Oberteuffer et al. vs. Robertson , 
(24 Federal Reports, 852,) in the Circuit Court of the United States tor 
the Southern District of New York, decided that whenever goods are 
sold in the markets of the country of exportation, whether usually, or 
only occasionally, in boxes, cartons, or coverings of any kind, which 
make the goods attractive and desirable, and the boxes, cartons, &c., 
enter into the price there of the goods as merchantable commodities, 
the boxes, cartons, &c., are accessories of the goods; and actual market- 
value includes them as an element of the value of the goods in the con¬ 
dition in which they are purchased. 

The decisions and instructions of this Department in respect to the 
seventh section of the law of 1883, just alluded to, have resulted in a 
very large number of protests made, and suits begun, by importers, to 
recover money alleged by them to have been exacted in excess by Col¬ 
lectors in obedience to the requirements of this Department. 

I commend this question to the immediate attention of Congress to 
the end that, by legislation, the question may be settled definitely for 
the future, and so prevent the continuance in the future of a large num¬ 
ber of protests and suits which have been begun, or are likely to be 
begun, on account of the decision of the Department, which decision 
will be adhered to by me in the absence of legislation, unless the ques¬ 
tion be finally adjudged adversely to the Department by the Supreme 
Court of the United States. 

The question presented by the seventh section of the law of 1883, has 
arisen in another form, and in connection with reappraisements. On 
importations of an article, commercially known as u Worsted Italians,” 
there was an appeal to reappraisers, and the General Appraiser and 
the Merchant Appraiser disagreed upon the question whether a coarse 
cotton covering placed around the article should be included in the du¬ 
tiable value. The General Appraiser decided in the affirmative, and 
the Merchant Appraiser in the negative. Under the statute in such 
cases, the question went to the Collector “to decide between them.” 
That subject, which incidentally embraced other questions, was referred 
to the Solicitor of the Treasury for his opinion. On August 31, 1885, 
I decided that the question whether or not that coarse cotton covering 
known as “Tillots,” and whether cartons, boxes or other coverings are 
elements of the dutiable value of any particular importation, is to be 
determined in each case by the appraising officers, subject to the gen¬ 
eral rule of decision in such cases laid down in section 2906 of the Re- 


XXX REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

vised Statutes, and the opinion of the Attorney General of January 11, 
1884. 

In the reply of the Chief Clerk of the Customs at New York contained 
in the accompanying documents, (p. 601,) that officer, in response to my 
invitation to freely criticise any decision of this Department, expresses 
the opinion that when the reappraisers shall disagree, and the Collector, 
by Revised Statutes, section 2930, “shall decide between them,” that 
officer must adopt one or the other of the disagreeing opinions of the 
reappraisers, and that Article 470 of General Treasury Regulations of 1884 
which declares that “the Collector is, however, not bound by the values 
fixed in the report of either the Merchant Appraiser or the General 
Appraiser, but will adopt such value as upon the testimony submitted 
may seem to him just,” is in violation of law. The question may be 
of importance in customs administration by reason of the recent opin¬ 
ion of the Supreme Court in Hilton vs. Merritt (110 U. S. Rep., 97) where 
the Court, in the course of a very instructive opinion on the subject of 
reappraisals, and the relation of appraising officers to classification, 
rates and amounts of duty, refers to the questions suggested to me by 
the Chief Clerk of the Customs at New York, but without expressing 
an opinion thereon. 

The instructions of this Department have not been uniform, for in the 
volume of Customs Regulations for 1874, Art. 427, it is said, referring 
to a disagreement of reappraisers, that “they will make separate reports 
to the Collector who will decide between them, adopting one or the 
other valuation as he may deem just.” The question is not free from 
difficulty as is sufficiently intimated in the opinion of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, to which I have just referred. Aided by 
the law advisers and experts of this Department, I have given it a 
■careful consideration, and am of the opinion that it was the intention 
of Congress to give, and that a fair construction of the language used 
by Congress does give, a full discretion to the Collector in the final 
determination of the values in controversy. A strictly literal construc¬ 
tion of the words “decide between them” might exclude the finding 
either of the General Appraiser, or the merchant, and make an inter¬ 
mediate valuation obligatory, which valuation it may be fairly assumed 
would naturally be nearer the truth than that of either of the disagree¬ 
ing reappraisers. 1 do not think that the conclusion need necessarily 
be that the Collector, when called upon to act as an umpire by the stat¬ 
ute, is necessarily to be considered an appraising officer, bound by all the 
statute technicalities which environ those officers. And yet, the statute 
declares that “the appraisal thus determined (by the Collector) shall be 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXI 


final. The Collector need not take an oath of office as appraiser in 
each case, and it is within his discretion and judgment, upon all the 
facts, whether or not to make a personal examination of the merchan¬ 
dise. The Examiners, Assistant Appraisers,^ the Appraiser and the 
merchant reappraiser are assumed to be experts in the character, quality 
and value of the merchandise under consideration; while in the case 
of the Collector, it may be said that the statute did not assume that he 
would possess such expert knowledge. A reappraisement is, in my 
opinion, substantially the same proceeding as the original appraisement, 
inasmuch as the statute expressly prescribes that the reappraising officers 
shall proceed agreeably to the provisions made for the original appraise¬ 
ment. But the statute has made no such requirements of a Collector 
when deciding between disagreeing reappraisers. It seems to me that 
an interpretation of the statute which required the Collector to take one 
or the other of two disagreeing valuations might require him to make 
a decision that his own judgment did not approve. Congress evidently 
foresaw that as only two persons could sit on a reappraisement, dis- 
greements between them might arise which must be decided by some¬ 
body, and the statute naturally and prudently, treated and disposed of 
such a contention by making the decision of the Collector, as Collector, 
final and conclusive. 

I shall adhere to these views until otherwise controlled by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, or by statute, but, in the meanwhile, I re¬ 
spectfully submit the question to the consideration of Congress for such 
legislation, if any, as it may see fit to make. 

It is proper for me to add that neither the decision of this Depart¬ 
ment, of August 31, 1885, nor any other Department decision on this 
subject, interferes Avith the functions of appraising officers in ascertain¬ 
ing the value of imported goods. I have only, in obedience to the 
requirements of Congress, defined and established a general principle, 
.and rule, by which they are to be guided. 

When the statute requires that on the disagreement of two reapprais¬ 
ers “the Collector shall decide between them” it imposes a most deli¬ 
cate and important task upon the Collector, which, there is reason to 
fear, has, in the past, been performed in an inconsiderate and perfunc¬ 
tory manner. The exercise of such discretion and judgment should 
never, by a Collector, be intrusted to any subordinate. The law, and 
the public welfare, demand that the decision shall, in every aspect, 
represent his own intelligence, integrity and reason. 


XXXII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

FINAL ASSESSMENT OF DUTY. 

If a correct and truthful invoice of imported merchandise can be ob¬ 
tained by the Collector, and if the appraising and measuring officers 
are competent and watchful, the full amount of duty required by Con¬ 
gress to be paid will be levied, and collected, unless this Department, 
and the several Collectors, shall be at fault in making classifications, 
prescribing the rates, and in liquidations. There is now no reasonable 
ground for complaint of the manner in which classification is made, and 
rates levied. There are disputes in abundance between importers and 
Collectors in that regard, and difficult questions are presented by the 
local officers to this Department, but these difficulties are inherent in 
the existing tariff law rather than in administration. That many of 
the present rates of duty have been a long time in force does not prevent 
a daily increasing presentation of new questions, concerning commercial 
designation and classification, growing, in part, out of the production 
of new forms of manufacture by new combinations of materials, creating 
novel commercial designations. There are, in the present law, not only 
purely ad valorem rates, but specific rates, which vary according to the 
value of the article at the foreign port. The same article is, by the 
present tariff, made to pay duty by value, and by quantity. Cotton 
goods are dutiable according to the number of threads to the square 
inch. The satisfactory execution of such a law requires, in my opinion, 
an immediate and thorough strengthening of the appraising department 
of the several ports, and important changes elsewhere in the consular 
and customs service. 1 appreciate how important it is to the importing, 
manufacturing, and industrial interests of this country, that the tariff 
law shall be stable, permanent, and well understood, but those qualities 
can never inhere, in my judgment, in the present tariff law, no matter 
how long it is upon the Statute-Book, and for the reasons to which I 
have referred. 

There are now 116 ports of entry in the United States with as 
many separate Collectors, at each and all of which a new article of 
manufacture may be presented for entry. It is of course impossible for 
the Secretary of the Treasury, any more than Congress, to anticipate 
every possible product of manufacture, and of importation, under the 
existing law. When, therefore, the article is presented for duty, the 
Appraising officers, and the Collector, at each port, levy such a rate as 
they think the law requires, but the result is that differing rates on pre¬ 
cisely similar articles are, at first, levied at the different ports. In 
order to correct such errors, since it is impossible that each of several 
conflicting decisions can be correct, the law has wisely provided that 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXIII 


the importer may protest against the exaction by a Collector of a rate 
or an amount of duty which he believes excessive. If the Collector 
adheres to his first ruling, then the law permits the importer to appeal 
therefrom to the Secretary of the Treasury. It is in the interest of the 
law, and of a good administration of the revenue, that importers be 
vigilant in making such protests and appeals whenever they feel ag¬ 
grieved, for thereby the Secretary of the Treasury is informed of differing 
decisions in the several collection districts. If, when the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment has decided (as it has the authority to decide definitely and finally 
so far as the executive department is concerned) what the rate of duty 
shall be, and the importer is dissatisfied, he is then permitted by the 
Government to bring a suit against the Collector to test judicially the 
legality of the exaction. This suit must be prosecuted in a Federal 
Court of the Circuit wherein the exaction of the money was made, and, 
under defined circumstances, either party can, by writ of error, bring 
a question of law arising therein to the Supreme Court at Washington. 

The present law (Rev. Stats., 2931) declares that the decision of 
the Collector, as to the rate and amount of duties, shall be “ final and 
conclusive” unless a legal protest be filed within ten days “after the 
ascertainment and liquidation of the duties.” There have been con¬ 
tradictory instructions by this Department, (See those of September 30, 
1878, and July 8,1879) in respect to the one of several possible ascertain¬ 
ments and liquidations referred to by the statute. The last instruction 
by this Department declares a protest may legally be within ten days 
after the first ascertainment and liquidation, although the final liquida¬ 
tion of the entire entry and account may not be, till afterwards. It is 
obvious that if a protest need not be, and cannot legally be, till ten 
days, and an appeal to this Department till thirty days, after the 
Huai liquidation of a warehouse entry on the last withdrawal, there 
having been a succession of withdrawals for consumption of a portion 
of the merchandise originally entered for warehouse and duty paid 
thereon,—then the protest may not be against a payment of money and 
within ten days, but only against a subsequent computing, or liquida¬ 
tion. It is important that the Collector be as quickly as possible in¬ 
formed of any illegality in his exaction of money that is set up by an 
importer. The law of protests, appeals, and suits needs revision by 
Congress in several particulars. 

There have been from time to time, and here and there, suggestions, 
first, that the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, in respect to 
the rate and amount of duty shall be final and conclusive as the decis- 

( 3 ) 


XXXIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

ion of the appraising department is final and conclusive as to dutiable 
value, or, secondly, if the importer shall be allowed an appeal to any 
other tribunal, it shall not be to the regularly established Federal Courts 
of the country, but to a special tribunal, either the present Court of 
Claims, or a single tribunal to be established elsewhere. In regard to 
the first suggestion, I have already expressed an opinion; and in regard 
to the second, I am equally clear that the use of a new tribunal like the 
Court of Claims, or any other to be established, would not be well. I 
am advised that the Constitution forbids the taking away from an im¬ 
porter of the right of trial by jury in a suit against a Collector which 
he has begun, and which is now pending, inasmuch as it is a “suit at 
common law.” In probably nearly all such suits the value in contro" 
versy exceeds twenty dollars, ($20.) Congress could deprive importers 
in the future of the right to maintain a suit to revise the decision of the 
Secretary of the Treasury in respect to rates of duty, but such a pro¬ 
ceeding would be unwise if it created additional hostility against the 
tariff law. 

If a new tribunal shall be created where shall it sit? If there be more 
than one, there will be need of a supreme appellate tribunal to produce 
uniformity of decision. The larger part of the revenue on imports is 
collected at the Port of New York, and therefore, New York would 
naturally be the place chosen for the sitting of such a tribunal. But, 
if there is to be only one tribunal, and it sit either in New York, or in 
Washington, importers who live in distant parts of the country and on 
the Pacific Coast, will be greatly inconvenienced if witnesses must travel 
so far. The questions cannot always be adequately presented on written 
depositions. On all questions of fact, in dispute between an importer 
and the Government concerning rates of duty, both parties are entitled 
to a trial by jury if desired, and a trial by jury at the place where the 
levy was made. The present system secures that right, and it also 
secures the right of the importer and the Government to bring each and 
every question of law to the Supreme Court at Washington. 

There have also been suggestions for the creation of an Executive 
Board to try and decide the questions concerning commercial designa¬ 
tion, classification and rates of duty which are now tried and decided 
by the Treasury Department. The result of my own limited observa¬ 
tion and experience in the Department is that if the existing system be 
efficiently worked, both by importers and local customs officers, and by 
this Department, there is no need of modification. Bnt at several of the 
ports the system is not at present adequately worked. If the importer be 
dissatisfied, and file a protest against the liquidation, the Collector is to 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXY 


immediately reconsider the liquidation in the light of the protest. In 
practice, however, that important work of considering the protest, and 
of redecision of the question of rate of duty, is either assigned by the 
Collector to a subordinate, or is performed by him in a perfunctory 
manner. It is the practice in this Department when an appeal is re¬ 
ceived to ask a report from the local officers where the liquidation was 
made which is complained of, and if the reply be a thorough and con¬ 
scientious one, both in regard to law and facts, this Department will 
have before it the contention of the importer, who is very sure to state 
his case clearly and strongly, and also the contention of the local officers. 
Upon such a preparation of each case, and upon a similar preparation 
of similar cases from the several ports, the Department ought to be in 
a condition to make a safe decision. 

I am also of the opinion that the decision of these questions should 
be kept in hands where it can be subject to the suggestion of the Presi¬ 
dent, inasmuch as those questions often involve the consideration of 
treaties and of the friendly relations of this Government with other 
governments. 

It will be obvious that the labor and responsibility of deciding ques¬ 
tions involving rates of duty, which is now devolved upon the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury, is onerous, and for his own peace and contentment 
of mind he would wish the responsibility placed elsewhere, but it is 
difficult for me to see how any executive commission, or board, can be 
permitted to decide that class of questions without a certain amount 
of responsibility of revision- being finally devolved upon the Head of 
this Department, in order to secure uniformity at all the ports, and the 
obedience of each and all of the customs officers. 

The law commands the Secretary of the Treasury to make lawful 
rules and regulations for the government of all customs officers, and 
section 2931 of the Revised Statutes declares that the decision of the 
Collector, at the port of importation and entry, as to the rate and amount 
of duties shall, as has just now been explained, be final and conclusive 
against all persons interested therein, unless a protest shall be filed and 
an appeal taken from the decision of the Collector as therein prescribed; 
and on such appeal the decision of the Secretary shall be final and 
conclusive, so far as the Executive Department is concerned. This 
Department, under these provisions of law, is therefore required, as 
I have already said, to make final decision, on actual importation, be¬ 
tween any disagreeing collector and importer. This function is a 
most difficult and responsible one under all circumstances, and is one, 


XXXYI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the exercise of which, naturally excites criticism or condemnation. 
The difficulty inheres chiefly, when Congress,, in the law which im¬ 
poses rates of duty, has not spoken of an article in a clear and un¬ 
ambiguous manner. Different theories have heretofore prevailed, in 
years past in this Department, as I am informed, in respect to the rule 
of decision when Congress has not thus spoken with perfect precision 
in respect to the rate to be levied on a particular article. The article 
may not have been in existence, and commercially known, at the time 
the schedule of rates was fixed by Congress. Some of my distinguished 
predecessors in deciding such questions of rates of duty between col¬ 
lectors and importers have invoked the aid of the principle announced 
by Mr. Justice Story, in Adams vs. Bancroft , (3 Sumner, 387,) that laws 
imposing duties are never construed beyond the natural import of the 
language, and duties are never imposed upon the citizens upon doubtful 
interpretation, for every duty imposes a burden on the public at large, 
and is to be construed strictly, and must be made out in a clear and 
determinate manner from the language of the statute. The same prin¬ 
ciple was subsequently reannounced by that wisest of magistrates, Mr. 
Justice Samuel Kelson, in Powers vs. Barney , (3 Blatchford, C. C. Rep., 
203,) where he said “that in cases of serious ambiguity in the language 
of the act, or doubtful classification of articles, the construction is to be 
in favor of the importer, as duties are never imposed upon the citizen 
upon vague or doubful interpretations.” 

The rule by which the Secretary shall be governed in this class of de¬ 
cisions, is the more important because the Supreme Court of the United 
States holds that in the trial of a suit to overthrow the decision of this 
Department, as to rates of duty, the presumption shall be that the 
decision was correct, and the burden is thrown upon the importer of 
satisfying the Court and Jury to the contrary. 

What the Secretary of the Treasury has to do in this regard, as an 
executive officer, is to ascertain, as best he can, and enforce, the inten¬ 
tion of Congress as defined and expressed in the language it has used, 
whether in declaring articles subject to duty or exempt therefrom. It 
is natural, and indeed is indispensable for the protection of the revenue, 
that the local customs officers in deciding questions of classification and 
rates, shall, in cases of perplexity and doubt, give to the Secretary of 
the Treasury, and the Government, the benefit thereof, first, because 
the Collector is responsible for levying and collecting the full rate of 
duty; and, secondly, because if less than the full rate is collected, it is 
possible (although the contingency under the existing system of ware- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXYII 


housing and of bonds taken on entry for consumption is remote) that 
security may pass out of the hands of the Collector before the error in 
rate can be presented to this Department and corrected. 

In the tariff law enacted on March 3, 1883, there is a clause which . 
has relation to this subject. It is to be found in section 5, p. 491, and 
is an addition to section 2499 of the Revised Statutes, which section as 
it stands in the revision is taken from the twentieth section of the Tariff 
Law of 1842, which is known as the “Similitude Section,” which was 
considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Stuart vs. Max¬ 
well, (16 Howard, 150.) The additional clause enacted in 1883 is this: 

“If two oi* more rates of duty should be applicable to any imported 
article, it shall be classified for duty under the highest of such rates: 
Provided , That non-enumerated articles similar in material and quality 
and texture, and the use to which they may be applied, to articles on the 
free-list, and in the manufacture of which no dutiable materials are 
used, shall be free.” 

The clause was not, as it seems to me, intended by Congress to declare 
that when the Legislative Department has used obscure, ambiguous or 
equivocal language in respect to an article, not fairly within the Simil¬ 
itude Section, there shall be levied the highest possible rate, but 
rather that the rule expressed by the two illustrious magistrates whom 
I have just quoted is the truer and better executive rule. 

In another part of this report, I have alluded to the large number of 
suits now pending in different parts of the country, to recover money 
alleged to have been exacted in excess for duties. An interpretation 
which is the opposite of the one I have suggested as most conformable to 
the spirit of our institutions, and to the feelings of the people from whom 
money is taken by taxes, would largely increase the number of those 
suits; and so long as the existing law remains upon the Statute-Book 
which permits jurymen to decide questions of commercial designation 
and questions of fact, in such suits, and an independent magistracy to 
decide questions of law, it is not to be assumed that such suits will be 
finally disposed of upon the rule that in every case the citizen must be 
made to pay, when the law-makers have not spoken clearly and dis¬ 
tinctly, the highest possible rate. 

In respect to all the decisions, and the principle of the decisions, which 
have been heretofore made by my predecessors in respect to-classifications 
and rates of duty, and to executive decisions which are now pending in 
the courts, I shall in no way interfere, excepting to take care, so far as 
I can, that the defence to be interposed by the several District Attor¬ 
neys shall be thorough and adequate. Those suits have passed out of 


XXXVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


executive determination and are substantially in the hands, so far as the 
Executive is concerned, of the Department of Justice, and those of the 
Courts. 

I deem it my duty to respectfully present to Congress the rule upon 
which, while, at the same time enforcing and protecting the Similitude 
Section, I shall act in all new questions as they may arise, and until 
otherwise directed by superior authority. 

SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE TREASURY, AND CHIEF OFFICERS AT THE 

PORTS. 

There has been, from time to time, especially during the last summer 
and in New York, criticism of the conduct of Special Agents of the 
Treasury, their employment, and interference with the collection of the 
revenue. When I came to this Department, I found there was in service 
under the Revised Statutes (sec. 2649,) as amended in 1876 and 1878, the 
full number of twenty-eight (28) Special Agents that can be employed in 
the customs service, and at an annual total cost, for the last fiscal year, 
of eighty-seven thousand four hundred and sixty-six dollars and forty- 
two cents, ($87,466.42.) 

I also found a force of Special Inspectors, numbering forty-three, (43,) 
the entire expenditure for which in the last fiscal year was fifty-two 
thousand six hundred and seventy-two dollars and two cents, ($52,672.02.) 
These inspectors are assigned to duty under the Collectors and Special 
Agents. 

I also found other persons employed on what was called the u Fraud 
Roll , 77 to the number on November 1,1884, of fifty, (50,) under an appropri¬ 
ation of not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, ($ 100 , 000 ,) which 
began in the Civil Appropriation Bill of 1879 “ for the detection and 
prevention of frauds on the customs revenue,” and has been annually 
continued thereafter. For the year ending June 30, 1880, the cost of 
this “Fraud Roll” was only twenty-three thousand three hundred and 
eighty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents, ($23,389.25,) but for the 
first three quarters of the last fiscal year of 1884-5 the expense was about 
sixty thousand dollars, ($60,000.) There are to-day only eight ( 8 ) per¬ 
sons on that “ Roll” out of fifty (50) in November, 1884 5 the total annual 
cost is now at the rate of about eight thousand dollars, ($ 8 ,000,) and five (5) 
of the eight ( 8 ) are employed in Europe, as silk experts to aid our Consular 
Agents, from which service I have not yet withdrawn them. The per. 
sons on the “Fraud Roll,” were, and now are, under the immediate 
supervision of the Special Agents 7 Division of the Treasury. 

There is much obscurity in the origin of the employment of Special 
Agents of the Treasury in customs affairs 5 of the fund out of which they 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXIX 

were paid before 1870; and of the authority therefor which appears not 
to have been distinctly given by Congress till the last-named date. 
(Sec. 2649, Revised Statutes.) The accompanying documents (pp. 274 
to 286) give such information thereon as I have been able to gather. 

The average annual expenditure during the last five years to employ 
Special Agents of the Treasury, Special Inspectors, and members of the 
“Fraud Roll” to aid, or supervise, the regular officers in executing the 
customs law has been $184,306.13. That sum I deem excessive, and I 
shall continue to make effort to prudently reduce it; members of the 
“Fraud Roll,” have even been assigned to permanent work in the Dis¬ 
trict Attorney’s Office at New York. 

In the present force of Special Agents, numbering twenty-three, (23,) 
there are useful servants of the revenue whose intelligence, zeal and 
fidelity cannot be justly, or successfully, called in question. Their work 
is incessant, responsible, delicate in character, and at times most vexing. 
The best among them are invaluable aids to the Head of this Depart¬ 
ment, whose services, or the services of others like them, it would be 
an injury to the customs revenue to lose. But yet, while I thus fully 
and cordially recognize the value of the Special Agents’ Division, I also 
appreciate the danger there is that a force of men, so near the Secretary, 
and naturally believed by the local officers to represent his views and 
purposes, may, if not most judicious and discreet in conduct, and not 
most watchfully supervised, become an' injury to the local service at the 
ports which they frequently visit as the especial representatives of this 
Department, by creating, or encouraging, among the officers of the 
ports, a feeling that the latter are relieved in some sense of the respon¬ 
sibility which the statute imposes on them, and especially if assigned to 
permanent work therein. I fear that such has already, and in times 
past, been one result, and that the Government is now feeling, through¬ 
out the country, the unfortunate consequences. The functions of Collec¬ 
tors, Naval Officers, and Surveyors, as well as their responsibilities, are 
clearly defined in the law, but yet it is easy for those officers to fall 
into the habit of thinking that if the Secretary of the Treasury does not, 
by the eyes of his Special Agents, see irregularities and needed reforms, 
then none exist. 

If such a condition of dependence on this Department actually and 
generally exist, as I fear that it does, for supervision of the local work 
of a port, or of a place on the frontier, the process of restoring a condi - 
tion of effective and responsible local administration, such as the law 
contemplates, will necessarily be slow. The average customs officer, 
who has been long in service, cannot be easily, and quickly, shunted 


XL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

upon a new track when reform is needed. The force of habit is strong 
with him. 

In the administration of the customs law the Collector is the chief 
officer of the Port. The wise framers of the law of 1799 provided, for 
local self-government under general supervision at the Federal Capital. 
The Surveyor is under direction of the Collector, and is the chief out¬ 
door officer. The Naval Officer verifies and countersigns many of the 
more important acts of the Collector in estimating, levying and liquidat¬ 
ing duties. It is through the Collector that chiefly flow the orders of 
the Department to the port. While the duties of the Naval Officer, 
Surveyor and Appraiser are clearly defined by law, it is, nevertheless, 
upon the Collector that the Department must depend for general super¬ 
intendence, and a taking care that, the law is executed at the port. It 
is the Collector who communicates with the District Attorney, and 
directs, or ought to direct at the outset, the instituting, and defending, 
of certain suits at law. It is manifestly improper that his authority or 
influence, be weakened, or impaired, by any subordinate Agents of the 
Treasury. The salary of the Collector at New York, which is larger than 
that of any Federal Officer, excepting the President, larger than that of 
the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court, or any Head of a Department, 
may be taken as an indication of his responsibility and labor if both be 
adequately performed. At that port seven-tenths of the whole customs 
revenue, amounting last year to $181,471,939.34 is by him collected. 
He selects merchant appraisers, and with himself is often the sole 
and final decision. He decides, in the first instance, complicated 
questions of rates of duty. He should be, if any one man could 
be, a successful merchant, an experienced lawyer, a wise judge, and 
especially a controlling executive officer in the handling of subor¬ 
dinates. He requires, and should have, adequate assistance, but, 
in many most essential matters and controversies, the discretion, judg¬ 
ment and decision must be his own individual act, at the end of careful 
and wise investigation, or the customs revenue may suffer irreparable 
injury. Very much that is bad in the present condition of the cus¬ 
toms service at New York, has come of the freedom given, by the Col¬ 
lector, to Deputy Collectors to execute the law in their own way, and 
even to exercise discretion in important matters, without adequate, 
constant, personal supervision by the chief officer of the port. What is 
true of New York is true of other ports in a measure and relatively to 
the business. As a rule, the way of doing the work by the chief officers 
of the collection districts is carefully prescribed by Statute and Treasury 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XLI 


Regulations, but there is need of perpetual watchfulness by the Collector 
to keep the machinery from falling into infirmity and partial decay, as 
is to-day its condition in too many districts. 

SUITS AGAINST COLLECTORS. 

I respectfully ask the attention of the Senate and House to the several 
replies made to my inquiries by the Attorneys of the United States at 
Boston, Yew York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore; and especially to the 
reply of the Attorney of the United States for the Southern District of 
Yew York, in respect to suits now pending, and growing out of differ¬ 
ences between importers and Collectors in respect to the rate and amount 
of duty levied by the latter. The number of such suits now pending in 
the Southern District of Yew York is reported to be about two thou¬ 
sand three hundred, (2,300.) It will arrest attention that about one 
hundred and ninety-five (195) of these pending and untried suits in the 
Southern District of Yew York arose under the Tariff Laws of 1846, 
1851, and 1857. 

It will, no doubt, be to Congress, as it was to me, a startling announce¬ 
ment that “of these suits no one is now” (October 19, 1885) “fully 
ready for trial” on the part of the defendant; that “the pleadings do 
not disclose the precise issues in controversy;” that “the issues can 
only be accurately determined from the plaintiffs’ protests, which, with 
very few exceptions, are on file at the Custom-House,” and have, as it 
is to be inferred, not been seen by the District Attorney’s Office; and 
that there does not appear to be in the District Attorney’s “Office or 
elsewhere , within the control of the Government , any note or memorandum 
as to what were the facts, on which the action of the Government officers 
was based, or what witnesses are available for the defence.” 

There is in the reply made by the District Attorney to my inquiries, 
a severe criticism of the conduct of the Collector of the Port in regard 
to those suits, but, conceding that criticism to be well founded, I am 
even then at a loss to understand how, or why, if the District Attorney 
has enforced, as was his duty, Section 3012 of the Revised Statutes, 
there is not in his office, as he says there is not, “ any intimation of 
what the issue really is, or what is the Government’s defence.” 

That enactment, requiring a detailed statement of the plaintiff’s de¬ 
mand, and a “description of the merchandise,” was made in 1866; and 
if such a 1L Bill of Particulars ’ ’ be not served on the District Attorney, 1L a 
judgment of non pros, shall be rendered,” says the law. One is natu¬ 
rally puzzled to understand how an adequate examination of each case 
could have been made by the District Attorney, even to prepare proper 


XLII 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


pleadings in defence, on such meagre facts as are described as now in 
that office. An inquiry was made by the Court in Muser vs. Robertson , 
(21 Blatch., C. C. Rep., 368,) as to the sufficiency of the information 
respecting “the precise points in controversy” in Collector’s suits, 
afforded to the defendant, and his attorney, by the statutes, and to 
that opinion I respectfully invite the attention of Congress. 

It is due to the present District Attorney at New York to say that 
these suits were begun, and put at issue, before his term of office began, 
and that the reply to me, of October 19, 1885, was made before any of 
the assistants so long in that office had been removed, or otherwise 
changed. 

What sum of money may be involved in these twenty-three hundred 
(2,300) suits, the information accessible by me, either in the office of 
the District Attorney, or the Collector, does not enable this Department 
to form even a guess. It may be millions! Nor ain I able definitely to 
ascertain why more of these suits have not been put to trial. I am told 
that during the three years ended April 6,1885, only 105 days have been, 
by the Circuit Courts for the Southern District of New York, given to 
the trial with a jury of suits against Collectors, and, in all that period, 
only 58 such suits were tried. Since April 6, 1885, no Collector’s suits 
have been tried with a jury. 

I do not concur in the plan suggested by the District Attorney’s Office 
(p. 619) to send the questions therein referred to, of law, or fact, or 
both, “to a Referee for his determination of the whole suit.” If com 
putations, or reliquidations, of duty are not to be made in presence 
of the Court and Jury, but are to be sent to a Referee, he should be 
the Collector of the Port, in order that they be done by the regular 
liquidating force of the Custom-House. Whatever questions he, and 
the Appraiser, cannot dispose of should, as a rule, and excepting in mere 
numerical calculations, if questions of fact, be decided by the Jury, 
and if of law, by the Court. 

It will be remembered that by Section 827 of the Revised Statutes, 
the District Attorney may receive a fee, outside of his salary, for the 
defence of these suits. Immediately prior to 1877 the District Attorney 
at New York received, under that section, within three years, $40,490. 
On June 4, 1877, it was ordered by my distinguished predecessor, Mr. 
Sherman, that not more than four thousand dollars, ($4,000,) in any 
one year, be allowed to any one District Attorney, under that sec¬ 
tion, which rule is now in force, and that sum has since then been 
annually allowed to the District Attorney at New York, in addition 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XLIII 


to his salary of six thousand dollars, ($6,000,) and other sums. Im¬ 
mediately after the issue of that order, the District Attorney at 
New York asked this Department, on September 11, 1877, for an 
allowance of a sum of money to two additional law-clerks, which 
was granted, and since then this Department has, under Section 827, 
paid to the New York District Attorney six thousand dollars ($6,000) a 
year, in addition to his salary, for his own services in Collectors’ suits, 
and for an allowance to two such law-clerks. What influence this new 
system of compensation has had on the defence of suits against Col¬ 
lectors, I am as yet unprepared to say. From the information gathered 
in this Department the following tabular statement has been prepared 
according to fiscal years, and it may throw light on the inquiry. 


Year. 

New suits. 

Tried. 

Settled 

without 

suit. 

In favor 
of U. S. 

1875. 

1,092 

103 

442 

82 


463 

64 

387 

47 


283 

98 

423 

17 


351 

30 

384 

30 

1879. 

400 

84 

473 

71 

1880. 

496 

7 

369 

3 

1881. 

712 

47 

727 

31 

1882. 

936 

31 

660 

27 


576 

25 

1,136 

5 


565 

35 

654 

4 


637 

34 

241 

6 

Totals. 

6,571 

558 

5,896 

323 

Average. 

597 10-11 

50 

586 

29 4-11 


It is to be added that this Department has also paid another annual 
salary of two thousand dollars ($2,000) to a member of the ‘ i Fraud Roll, ’ ’ 
who has been assigned* to the New York District Attorney’s Office as a 
lawyer, but whose services came to an end on the first of the present 
month. It should also be said that, by the general theory of our laws, 
and Sections 363 and 836 of the Revised Statutes, the number, and the 
compensation, of the assistants, or clerks, of District Attorneys are under 
the control of the Attorney-General, and that for the service of the 
necessary force in District Attorney’s Offices there was, for this present 
fiscal year, appropriated three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, 
($350,000.) 

The confusion and embarrassment created in the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment by the several sections of the Revised Statutes which regulate 
the moneys and payments to be allowed to District Attorneys by the 
accounting officers, and the inconvenient division of responsibility in 
that regard between this Department and the Department of Justice, 
























XLIY REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

have been clearly set forth in a letter from the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury to the House of Representatives, dated December 14, 1878, Ex. 
Doc., No. 27, 45th Congress, 2d session. The Revised Statutes declare 
(section 772) that the District Attorney, for the Southern District of 
New York, is entitled to receive, “for all his services,” a salary at the 
rate of $6,000 a year; but it has been the rule, in this Department, to pay, 
or allow, to that officer, other and additional sums for special services, 
by virtue of other sections referred to in the before-mentioned letter. 
Eor the last fiscal year the total sum paid, or allowed, to the District 
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, exclusive of sums 
received by him as fees, or costs, on the discontinuance of suits, or 
prosecutions, of which this Department has no record, was, as nearly 
as can be ascertained, $11,484. I earnestly advise that the law be 
amended so as to provide an adequate salary for that important officer, 
and for each of the other District Attorneys, which salary shall cover all 
services that such officers may, by their superior officers, be required 
to perform, and that each and every sum received by a District Attorney’s 
office as costs, or fees, or percentages, shall be paid into, and accounted 
for with the Treasury Department. 

I earnestly commend the 2,300 pending suits to the attention of Con¬ 
gress, together with an inquiry whether or not there be an adequate 
judicial force in New York to deal with those suits, and the new suits 
that are daily begun, which demand, in the interest of the Treasury, 
an immediate trial. 

The sum which the plaintiffs in these Collector’s suits is entitled to 
recover of the defendant as interest by way of damages, when there is a 
verdict in favor of the plantiffs, will be large, and is a very serious matter 
for the Treasury. The legal rate of interest in New York is much above 
what the Government pays on its bonded debt. It was decided by the 
Supreme Court of the United States in Buskin vs. Van Arsdale (15 Wal¬ 
lace, 75) that in such suits for the recovery of duties illegally exacted 
by Collectors of Customs, and paid under protest, the Jury is ordinarily 
entitled to add interest from the time of the illegal exaction complained 
of. But in a more recent case, Bedfield vs. Ystalyfera Iron Company, (110 
U. S. Reports, 174,) the Supreme Court rejected the item of interest 
in a judgment, upon the ground that the plaintiff had been guilty of 
laches in unreasonably delaying the prosecution of his claim. I have 
already directed, and shall require, that this very proper ruling of the 
Supreme Court be insisted upon in the future, and that the facts tending 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


XLY 


to show laches on the part of the plaintiff be properly presented, on 
the trial, to the Court and Jury if any such evidence exists. 

The decisions of the Supreme Court within the last ten years, have so • 
clearly and frequently expounded the general rules of law in respect to 
commercial designations, classification, burden of proof, and the re¬ 
spective functions of the Court and of the Jury in this class of suits, that 
there ought not to be difficulty in the true application thereof by the 
Circuit Judges, and a speedy determination of these untried suits, if 
there be adequate energy used on the part of the Attorneys of the United 
States in the several Districts where so many of these suits are pending 
and if a Court can be had. On all questions of fact, a verdict by a Jury 
in accordance with the weight of evidence, should be satisfactory to the 
Treasury Department, if the defence has been fully and adequately pre¬ 
sented. And on all questions of law the legislation of March 3,1875, has, 
in my opinion, indicated that the rulings and judgment of the trial court 
should be promptly acquiesced in by the Department if no error was 
made on the trial. When the District Attorney, defending against 
the suit, shall report an error of law made by the Judge to the preju¬ 
dice of the defendant, the questions presented will be submitted to 
the Attorney-General for his advice. Although the second section of 
that law provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may, notwith¬ 
standing the advice of the Attorney-General, insist on a writ of error 
to the Federal Court of last resort, it is not probable that the Head of 
this Department will be called upon to resist the advice of the Attorney- 
General to whom has been confided by law the conduct of the suits in 
the Supreme Court in which the Government is directly or indirectly a 
party. 

THE EXAMINATION OF THE BAGGAGE OF ARRIVING PASSENGERS. 

The documents which are herewith communicated to Congress explain 
(pp. 290 to 330) the circumstances and reasons under which I was con¬ 
strained to abandon for a time the use of the Barge Office, at the Port of 
New York, for the examination of the baggageof passengers. How soon 
that work may be resumed at the Barge Office will, in the absence of 
any legislation by Congress, depend on the facilities afforded to customs 
officers by steamship companies at their wharves, upon the safety of the 
revenue, and a proper regard to the convenience of travellers. The 
beginning of the use of the Barge Office had been so environed with 
improvident contracts, and the general arrangements therein had so 
inflamed public opinion against the Barge Office as then used, that it 
seemed to me, after a very careful consideration of the subject, that it 


XLVI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


would be wiser and safer for the revenue, to discontinue, temporarily at 
least, the use of the place. No injury to the revenue has, I am satis- 
*fied, thus far resulted from the change. 

A very serious difficulty, in the examination of passengers’ baggage 
presses upon the Department which is not to be relieved by any change 
in the place of examination so long as it is to be in a building upon the 
wharf w r here passengers are landed. 

The last Tariff Law of March 3, 1883, (22 Stats, at Large, 521,) inserts 
in the free-list the following: 

“ Wearing-apparel in actual use, and other personal effects (not mer¬ 
chandise,) professional books, implements, instruments and tools of 
trade, occupation or employment of persons arriving in the United 
States. But this Exemption shall not be considered to include machin¬ 
ery or orther articles employed for use in any manufacturing establish¬ 
ment, or for sale.” 

This exemption from duty is a literal copy from section 2505 of the 
Revised Statutes, p. 489, which clause was interpreted by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, in the decision rendered in the case of Astor 
vs. Merritt , on April 7, 1884, (111 U. S. Reports, 202.) In that opinion, 
the Court so interpreted the clause as to declare that the articles ex¬ 
empted from duty shall be the following: 

“ Wearing-apj)arel owned by the passenger and in a condition to be 
worn at once without further manufacture; (2) brought w r ith him as a 
passenger and intended for the use or wear of himself or his family who 
accompanied him as passengers, and not for sale, or purchase, or im¬ 
ported for other persons, or to be given away; (3) suitable for the sea¬ 
son of the year which is immediately approaching at the time of arri¬ 
val; (4) not exceeding in quantity, or quality, or value, what the pas¬ 
senger was in the habit of ordinarily providing for himself and his fam¬ 
ily at that time, and keeping on hand for his and their reasonable 
wants in view of their means and habits of life, even though such arti¬ 
cles had not been actually worn.” 

Such a very liberal interpretation was made of the phrase “in actual 
use” as applied to wearing-apparel. 

That interpretation is now the test, and guide, for customs officers iii 
ascertaining what articles shall be on the free-list. It is essential that 
the articles be owned by an arriving passenger, that they accompany 
the passenger, and that they are not brought hither for the benefit of 
other persons, or be given to other persons, when landed. It if? also 
essential, under the definition of the Supreme Court, that the articles 
be “actual wearing-apparel,” including of course articles ordinarily 
used by a traveller; that the articles of wearing-apparel be in a condi¬ 
tion to be worn immediately without further manufacture, and worn 
by the arriving passenger, or some member of his family who accom- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XLYII 


panies him, suitable for the season of the year immediately approach¬ 
ing at the time of arrival; and not in quantity, or quality, or value, in 
excess of what the passenger would ordinarily provide for himself and 
family at that time, and keep on hand for use, even though the articles 
had not been actually worn. 

Reasonable and fair execution of such a law, in the sense both of the 
Government and of the arriving passenger, cannot be easy under any 
circumstances of time or place. There must be an inquiry into ques¬ 
tions of present ownership, of future intention, of the suitableness of 
clothing for the season of the year, and of the quantity which thq arriv¬ 
ing traveller is in the habit of providing. Even if the luggage were 
regularly entered with the Collector, as is imported merchandise, and 
sent to the Appraiser’s stores for quiet and deliberate examination, the 
test required by the law would be difficult of correct and perfect appli¬ 
cation. But when large boxes, or trunks, containing the articles referred 
to, are to be examined, in a building on the steamer’s wharf, at all sea¬ 
sons of the year, and sometimes at all times of day or night, in the hurry 
and confusion of the arriving of hundreds of passengers, surrounded by 
waiting friends, who are impatient of delay, the difficulty becomes most 
serious. The examination is made by discharging “Inspectors” whose 
pay is four- dollars ($4) per day, and whose day of service is often long 
and tedious. 

The articles, classified as wearing-apparel, when brought into the 
country by regular importation, pay generally a very high rate of duty, 
as high as fifty (50) or seventy (70) per cent., and even more. There is 
naturally a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of manufacturers of 
clothing in our own country who are compelled to pay such high rates 
of duty on the imported material of manufacture, when they see, or 
think they see, travellers returning from Europe, who bring with them 
large quantities of new wearing-apparel fresh from a foreign shop. One 
of the most serious embarrassments in the way of the customs officers 
is a discrimination between those who bring such articles for sale, or 
gift to others, and those who bring them for their own use within the 
limitations defined by the Supreme Court 

The Chief Clerk of the Customs at the Port of New York (p. 586) 
says: 

“I know of no law for the examination of baggage on the steamers’ 
wharves. It is permitted by Treasury regulations only as a convenience 
to passengers.” 

Sections 2799, 2800, 2801 and 2802 clearly prescribe two methods of 
passing through the custom-house the baggage of arriving passengers. 
It may be passed by a formal entry, (section 2799,) as all other mer- 


XLVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

chandise, but separate and distinct therefrom, and after an examination a 
permit may be granted for delivery to the owner of such articles as are 
exempt from duty. The chief thing to be done, it will be seen, is not 
to appraise and levy duty, but to separate dutiable articles (if any there 
be in the luggage) from the free articles and deliver the latter to the 
traveller. Another mode (section 2801) distinctly authorized by the 
Statute is for the Collector and Naval Officer, whenever they “ think 
proper,” to direct the baggage of any person arriving to be examined 
by the Surveyor, or by an inspector, who shall make a return of the 
same. If any articles are exempt from duty, they, of course, are to be 
delivered to the owner; and if any are dutiable “due entry” of them 
must be made and duties paid thereon. Section 2801 does not define 
the place in which either a Surveyor, or an inspector, shall examine 
passengers’ luggage to ascertain what portion of it is, and what portion 
of it is not, exempt from duty. But the practice of examination on the 
steamers’ wharves has long existed, and I cannot doubt that the prac¬ 
tice is authorized by law. It would no doubt be a great convenience 
for customs officers at the Port of New York, and a great protection for 
the revenue, if the examination could be made in a more formal man¬ 
ner, and with more circumspection by the regular appraising officers, 
at their Government storehouse; but such formality and delay would 
certainly be a great hardship for arriving travellers. 

There is, as I have said before, not only a difficulty growing out of 
the law which is to be applied in such a hurried way, in the place where 
it is to be applied, and the officers by whom the examination is to be 
made, but a difficulty that is, in my appreciation, quite as serious, grows- 
out of the prevailing practice, by arriving passengers, of making pay¬ 
ments of money to inspectors for services rendered, and it is to be 
assumed, in making the examination to decide whether the articles are 
fairly embraced within the free-list. My attention was called to this 
subject when I first came to this Department, and I invite the attention 
of Congress to the several orders and letters of instruction (pp. 328-330) 
which I issued and made public. As the evil and scandal of these pay¬ 
ments in violation of law did not cease, I detailed Special Agents of the 
Treasury to supervise the examination of baggage, and report to me. 
Prom these reports, and from information received from other sources, 
I am convinced that the practice still exists, although so carried on, in 
part, under such circumstances of solicitation by the inspector after the 
passenger has left the wharf, as to make prevention difficult by any 
agency at present within my control. The large sums that are often 
paid, as I am told, by arriving passengers to the inspector who exam- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XLIX 


ines their luggage, or afterwards to some one who represents him, make 
it impossible to believe that the money is paid merely as a recognition 
of proper civility, or courtesy, or patience, on the part of the examining 
officer. 

The practice of asking and making such payments is one of long 
growth, and therefore well established; but the sums paid are represented 
to me as yearly increasing in size. How can it be prevented? The 
reply made by the Chief Clerk of the Customs at New York (p. 586) 
fairly represents the tenor of the replies contained in the accompany¬ 
ing documents. “By espionage,’ 7 is one suggestion! Manifestly the 
espionage of the Collector and the Surveyor, in person, would be inade¬ 
quate, in consideration of the number of steamers often arriving in New 
York on the same day, and at the same hour. The espionage of one 
local inspector over another local inspector does not hold out the prom¬ 
ise of a good result. I have thoroughly tried the espionage of Special 
Agents from this Department, and, while I think somewhat has been 
accomplished in the way of reform, the evil remains. To require one 
class of officers to watch another class, in that kind of work, would, in 
the end, create a system that must break down by its own weight. 

Another suggestion of remedy is “ the sure dismissal and prosecution of 
the offending parties.” The problem of “ dismissal” is a large, difficult 
and complicated one. The public mind is just now, and very properly, 
sensitive and alert in regard to the removal of any, even the most sub¬ 
ordinate servants of the customs revenue. The representatives of a 
political party, hostile, in the sense of “government by party,” to the 
party which has so long held executive power, having recently been 
chosen or appointed to execute the customs law, there is a most natural 
suspicion that a dismissal from office has been inspired, and only in¬ 
spired, by a desire to make a change in a party sense. Therefore comes, 
on each removal, a demand to know why the removal was made. If no 
reason be assigned, then the removing officer cannot expect to escape 
criticism. But in case of the examining inspectors of passengers’ lug 
gage now under consideration, if the evidence of receiving money under 
illegal circumstances is so clear as to permit its statement as a reason 
for removal, then there should follow a criminal prosecution of the offend¬ 
ing parties. If, on the other hand, the evidence is not sufficient to war¬ 
rant criminal prosecution, but is sufficient to raise a well-grounded 
suspicion against the integrity of the officer, then it would be manifestly 
unjust to the removed officer to announce bribery, and what in law is 
a misdemeanor, as a reason for removal. 

W 


L REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

This habit of making gifts to customs officers is quite general in other 
parts of the service besides the examination of passengers’ luggage. It 
prevails among the warehouses, and, as I am told, generally throughout 
the Port of New York. 1 can but feel that importers, and the persons 
concerned in the entry or the warehousing of merchandise, are quite as 
much to blame as are the servants of the Government who receive the 
money offered to them. The persons who make these gifts to customs 
officers would not tolerate such practices in their own business. No 
Bank would permit its depositors, or those in the habit of receiving 
loans therefrom, to make large 11 tips ’ ’ to its Cashier, or its Receiving 
Tellers, or its Paying Tellers, or its Discount Clerks, for services ren¬ 
dered in the business of the Bank. Nor would a wholesale or retail 
dealer permit customers to make gifts of money to his clerks for cour¬ 
tesies extended in the making of sales, or the fixing of prices. 

If it be asked why there is not an attempt at criminal prosecution of 
those who make, and those who receive, these gifts in violation of the 
spirit of the laws of Congress I refer to an extract (p. 557) from a com¬ 
munication made by Ex-President Arthur, when, in 1877, he was Col¬ 
lector at the Port of New York. He said, in relation to the subject of 
gratuities bestowed upon clerks by importers nominally for hastening 
the clearance of goods: 

a Tlie strict law now on the Statute-Book has proved practically in¬ 
operative for the simple reason that it has been found impossible to pro¬ 
cure the evidence of a violation. ’ ’ 

He adds in respect to the subject of bribing inspectors of passengers’ 
baggage: 

‘ ‘ I have read the remarks of the Surveyor as to the inspectors who 
are more immediately under his control, and concur in what he says. 
I may, in addition, call your attention to the fact that when last year a 
prosecution was instituted against inspectors who were alleged to have 
received money for passing passengers’ baggage, it failed because it was 
necessary to prove not only the receipt of the money but that it was re¬ 
ceived as an inducement to do an illegal act, and, secondly, that there 
were dutiable goods in the baggage. The latter fact it is impossible to 
prove [in court] unless the baggage is seized on the spot, which, with 
the present facilities for examination of baggage cannot ordinarily be 
done in those cases where the payment of money can be detected.” 

I do not fail to appreciate the fact that removal from office of a sus¬ 
pected subordinate servant of the revenue is within my own discretion 
and power, whenever I have what seems to me reasonable ground of 
suspicion. Thus far J have felt it my duty to await the most careful 
and patient inquiries in regard to these and other matters in the customs 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


LI 


service that it was in my power to make, before attempting to break up 
these pernicious practices by rapid removals of suspected persons. 

My fear is that nothing less than sweeping and severe new criminal 
enactments will thoroughly exterminate these practices. I respectfully 
commend the subject to the attention of Congress with the suggestion 
that the good effect of new legislation will depend upon the decision by 
Congress of the question whether or not it is wise, in a public sense, to 
punish criminally the giving or taking of a gift made to one in the cus¬ 
toms service without proof that such giving, or taking, was accompanied 
by an illegal intent; or in other words, whether or not the receiving by 
one in the customs service of any money, or thing of value, not author¬ 
ized by law, can well and safely be defined and punished as a crime, if 
done in connection with the importation, storage, examination or deliv¬ 
ery of imported merchandise, without the allegation, or proof, of an 
actual intent to violate the law, or injure the revenue. 

DETERRENT LEGISLATION AGAINST FRAUDS ON THE REVENUE. 

Neither my personal nor official experience has been such as to enable 
me, by observation of current events in the customs service immediately 
before or after 1874, to form an opinion of the effect of the legislation 
of that year known as the “Anti-Moiety Law. 77 The documents here¬ 
with offered to Congress do, however, contain very decided opinions 
expressed by those who have had good opportunities for such observa¬ 
tion. Whatever differences there may now be concerning the wisdom 
and safety of that legislation ten years ago, I think that Congress, and 
the country, should bear it in mind that the Executive, to-day,—although 
required to execute a tariff law quite as complicated, and quite as 
tempting, to smugglers and those who are willing to make false invoices 
and entries as was that of 1861-2, which made necessary the law of 
1863,—has been deprived of the incentive to local customs officers and 
others to make seizures which existed from 1799 to 1874, and also of the 
power to compel the disclosure of evidence that was practically exer¬ 
cised during the same period. The same acts of commission, or omis¬ 
sion, in respect to the customs revenue, are now, as from 1863 to 1874, 
defined and denounced as crimes to be punished by the criminal side of 
the Court, and as offences to be visited by deprivation of property by 
the civil side, but the power of the Executive and Judicial Departments 
to enforce the law, lias been greatly impaired by # the legislation of the 
last-named year. How serious that impairment is will appear by a 


LII 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


glance at that legislation and a comparison of it with the legislation of 
1799 and 1863. 

From the early days of the Government, and down to 1874, Congress 
gave to the Executive exceptionally large power to compel the produc¬ 
tion of evidence disclosing the actual cost, or foreign market value, of 
imported merchandise. All persons were thereby invited to lay before 
the Executive evidence in their possession tending to show frauds upon 
the revenue, and the chief officers of the several ports were induced by 
the hope of large pecuniary reward to make seizures of suspected mer¬ 
chandise, and to promote suits to recover the value of merchandise ille¬ 
gally imported which had passed out of the bands of the Government. 
That legislation is a great part of it to be found in the laws of March 
2, 1799, and of March 3, 1863. Up to the last-named date, as I am 
informed, the chief officers of the ports, or persons specially appointed 
by either of them, did, by obtaining a warrant therefor from a justice of 
the peace under section 68 of the law of March, 1799, enter private prem¬ 
ises in order to seach for, and seize, merchandise, on which duties had not 
been paid, and, under the protection of the warrant, demand the examina¬ 
tion of private books and papers purporting to relate to a suspected im¬ 
portation, and even carry the same away for inspection. By the seventh 
section of the law of March 3, 1863, that very extraordinary proceeding 
was regulated by requiring the application for a warrant to seize an 
importers invoices, books, or papers to be made under oath, to a Judge 
of the Federal District Court. The Judge was authorized, if he saw fit, 
to issue his warrant, directed to the Collector of the Port, empowering 
him to seize and carry away for inspection invoices, books or papers, 
and retain the same for the use of the United States so long as neces¬ 
sary, subject to the control of the Solicitor of the Treasury. On July 
18, 1866, and on March 2, 1867, the exercise of this dangerous preroga¬ 
tive was further restricted and controlled. Congress then ordained 
that the warrant be directed not to the Collector, but to the Mar¬ 
shal of the District, commanding the Marshal by himself or deputy, 
to seize and take possession of books or papers, and produce them 
before the Judge instead of the Collector of the Port. The Judge 
was authorized to permit the Collector to examine the same, but 
they were to be kept always subject to the disposition of the 
Judge, instead of the Solicitor of the Treasury. But by the first sec¬ 
tion of the law of June 22, 1874, all legislative authority to enter pri¬ 
vate premises, and seize private books and papers, in order to ascertain 
foreign values or to obtain evidence of frauds upon the revenue, either 
accomplished or intended, appears to have been swept away. Instead 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


LIII 


thereof, it was provided by the fifth section of the last-named law that, 
after suit for forfeiture had been actually begun, the Attorney repre¬ 
senting the Government may make a written motion, particularly de¬ 
scribing a book, invoice or paper, and setting forth the allegation that 
he expects to prove; and thereupon the Court in which the suit is pend¬ 
ing, may, at its discretion, issue a notice to the defendant, or claimant, 
to produce such book, invoice, or paper in Court, at a day and hour to 
be specified in said notice, which notice shall be duly served by the Mar¬ 
shal, and if the defendant or claimant, shall fail, or refuse, to so produce, 
and the allegation stated in the motion shall be taken as confessed unless 
his failure, or refusal, to produce shall be explained to the satisfaction of 
the Court. If produced, then the Government Attorney shall be per¬ 
mitted, under the direction of the Court to examine the designated en¬ 
tries in said book, invoice or paper, and offer the same in evidence, but 
the owner of said books and papers, his agent or attorney, shall have 
the custody thereof, subject to the order of the Court. This proceeding, 
it will be observed, gives to the Executive no power to compel the pro¬ 
duction of books, invoices or papers, before a suit has been begun, in 
order to ascertain the truth in respect to foreign values, or any other 
fraud upon the revenue. 

ITp to 1874, and by the seventy-first section of the law of March 2, 
1799, on a trial of a suit to forfeit any merchandise that had been seized 
for a fraud upon the revenue, the onus probandi of proving the innocence 
of the merchandise was upon the claimant thereof, provided a probable 
cause for such prosecution has been shown, to be judged by the Court 
before whom the prosecution is held. But, by the sixteenth section of 
the law of June 22, 1874, it was made the duty of the Court on the trial 
of any suit for forfeiture, or for value, to submit to the jury, as a dis¬ 
tinct and separate proposition, whether or not the alleged acts were 
done with an actual intention to defraud the United States, and to re¬ 
quire upon such proposition a special finding by such jury. I respect¬ 
fully invite the attention of Congress to a letter on this subject (pp. 
870) which the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, assigned to the Second Federal Circuit, has been kind enough 
to write to me in reply to my inquiry respecting his own very large 
judicial practice in the Southern District of New York on trials of suits 
for forfeiture, or for value, which took place before him under the laws 
of 1863 and 1874. 

Down to 1874, the law also gave, after deducting all proper costs and 
charges, one moiety of the proceeds of Custom-House forfeitures to the 
Federal Treasury, and divided the other half in equal portions between 


LIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

the Collector, Naval Officer, and Surveyor, excepting when such for¬ 
feiture was recovered in pursuance of information given to the Col¬ 
lector by any person other than the Naval Officer and Surveyor, and 
then one-fourth of the net proceeds were given to such informer, and 
the remaining one-quarter distributed among the three chief officers of 
the Port. That inspiration and inducement to the chief officer of the 
Port to make seizures, and to other persons to give information to the 
Collector of frauds upon the revenue, were taken away by the law of 
1874, which directed that the entire proceeds shall be paid into the Treas¬ 
ury, and'left it with the Secretary of the Treasury to make suitable 
compensation, out of a specific sum to be annually appropriated by Con¬ 
gress, to officers, or persons, seizing smuggled goods, or to any informer 
of perpetrated or contemplated customs revenue frauds, who shall not 
be an officer of the United States. The sum to be paid to such informer 
could not exceed in any one case five thousand dollars, ($5,000.) 

Up to 1874, when any line, or item in an invoice was made with in¬ 
tent to evade the payment of duty legally chargeable, the whole invoice, 
and all merchandise described therein, was liable to forfeiture, but 
under the twelfth section of the law of 1874, the forfeiture “ shall only 
apply to the whole of the merchandise in the case or package contain¬ 
ing the particular article or articles to which such fraud or alleged 
fraud relates; and anything contained in any act which provides for the 
foifeiture or confiscation of an entire invoice in consequence of any item 
or items contained in the same, being undervalued, be, and the same 
is, hereby repealed.” 

There will be found on page 028 of the accompanying documents a 
significant tabular statement of the number of suits or proceedings, 
begun in the Southern District of New York, for forfeiture, or for value, 
on account of revenue frauds, in the ten years between 1863 and 1874, 
and also the number of such suits, or proceedings, begun in the ten 
years between 1874 and the present date. In the former period, there 
were nine hundred and fifty-seven (957) suits, or proceedings, on which 
the large sum of three million six hundred and ninety-six thousand two 
hundred and thirty-two dollars and fifty-three cents ($3,-696,232.53) was 
paid into the Registry of the Court and in the last-named period, only 
two hundred and fifty-four (254) suits were begun, and thereon only 
three hundred and ninety-three thousand seven hundred and seventy- 
four dollars and seventy-two cents ($393,774.72) have been paid into the 
Registry of the Court. It will not, I suppose, be claimed that the leg¬ 
islation of 1874 was of a character to increase the integrity of invoice 
valuations, or to diminish custom-house frauds. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


LV 


But, nevertheless, the law of 1874 appears to have been necessary, at 
the time of its enactment, on account of the conduct of Special Agents 
of the Treasury, and the intolerable scandals it created. Ten years 
have, however, elapsed since that legislation, which probably required 
and contemplated, for its full fruition, that the Tariff Law, should at 
the same time, be simplified, and made easier of executive adminis¬ 
tration. 

It must be borne in mind that under the Federal laws there cannot be 
a libel or information filed, or other suit begun in a Federal Court to 
forfeit merchandise for a fraud upon the revenue, unless at the time 
there is a good and subsisting seizure thereof either by an executive 
officer or by an individual. Since 1874 there has been no one with a 
sufficient personal motive to take the risk and responsibility of seizing 
merchandise and depriving the owner of the control thereof. Previous 
to 1874, an informer, or one of the chief officers of the Port was natur¬ 
ally willing to encounter that risk, which might involve very serious 
pecuniary consequences for himself if the Judge, at the time of trial of 
the forfeiture, decided that there was no reasonable ground for the 
seizure. The accompanying opinions of the customs officers sufficiently 
disclose the difficulties, which, in their appreciation, the law of June 
22, 1874, has interposed in the way of a verdict by a jury in favor of 
the United States. 

In addition to this, the District Court for the Southern District of 
Hew York decided in March, 1884, (19 Federal Reporter, p. 893,) which 
decision was affirmed on appeal, by the Circuit Court, on May 5, 1884, 
that the legislation of June 22, 1874, covered the whole ground of frauds 
on the revenue by the entry of imported goods at the custom-house em¬ 
bracing punishment of importers criminally, as well as indemnity to 
the Government, and, therefore, superseded by implication sections 
2839 and 2864 of the Revised Statutes on the same subject, so that there 
is at present no law authorizing a suit for the value of the merchandise 
which has been withdrawn from the custody of the Government, 
although the merchandise has been tainted by a fraud in its importa¬ 
tion and would have been liable to condemnation if the prosecution 
had been in rem. I respectfully suggest to Congress the immediate 
enactment of legislation to remedy such an interpretation of the law of 
1874 which could not, I assume, have been intended by Congress. 

I do not make a recommendation to Congress for the restoration of 
the “old Moiety system,” and the statutory inducement to informers, 
or the law concerning intent and burden of proof, which existed from 
1799 to 1874. And I do not so recommend for the reason that thepurpose 


LVI 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


of the House and Senate, in respect to the simplification of the rates of 
duty and a prudent enlargement of the application of specific rates, is 
necessarily unknown. Should some such last-named change be not 
made, I have little faith that the existing power of the executive, and 
of the courts, will be adequate to secure honest invoices, and full ap¬ 
praisement. 

It is to be assumed that during the present and next fiscal year quite one 
hundred and fifty millions of dollars must annually be raised by duties on 
merchandise. The necessity of correct invoices, measurements, weights, 
classifications and appraisements will exist, under any practicable and 
possible reform of a tariff to raise that large sum, but the peril to the 
Government of false valuation in invoices need not be so great as now. 
Certainly the Government should not return to that system of inquisi¬ 
torial executive and judicial procedure, by the seizure of books and 
papers, that existed in 1863-7 unless the revenue is in peril, and also 
unless the moral sense of the country will be behind such legislation to 
uphold it. That false invoices, and the evasion of duties legally charge¬ 
able on merchandise, inflict definite evils upon the Government and 
those who make true invoices and pay full duties, cannot be denied. 
The law which denounces those acts, as crimes, or offences, to be pun¬ 
ished, ought not to be a dead letter, as it is now. But the real difficulty 
is, I fear, in the fact that so large a portion of the people of the country 
disapprove of the present tariff rates, and would condemn any adequate 
punitive and deterrent legislation, like that of 1799 and 1863, intended 
to uphold those tariff rates, or would only support such legislation be¬ 
cause obedience to all law is, among right-minded people, a general ob¬ 
ligation. But yet if the existing rates of duty are to stand, and if those 
compound rates wherein even specific rates depend on foreign values are 
hereafter to be inflicted, there will be need, I think, of new deterrent 
legislation which will more surely and swiftly imperil the property on 
which foreign manufacturers, and shippers, seek to evade payment of 
duty which they know the law imposes, and which duties those who 
present truthful invoices must pay, since the Collectors cannot levy ad 
valorem rates on lesk than the invoice or entered value. 


DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

The Honorable 

The Speaker of the House of Bep resentatives. 







V. 
















« 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


3 


INVESTIGATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS AT NEW 

YORK. 


No. l. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D. CJanuary 17, 1885. 

Gentlemen : In the recent trial at New York, N. Y., of the suit of 
Liddell against Dodge et at ., Judge Shipman in his charge to the jury 
severely reflected upon the management of the office of the special 
agents at New York. 

It is charged that twenty-two invoices of linens imported by Messrs. 
Watson & Girdwood were under investigation in the special agents’ 
office about January, 1884, but that no report thereon was made to the 
Department, the district attorney, or the collector, notwithstanding 
the fact that the goods embraced in the invoices referred to were under¬ 
valued, and that the proof thereof was easily attainable. 

The facts in the case are fully set forth in a communication, dated 
the 19th ultimo, from the United States, district attorney, and which, 
with other papers on the subject, are herein enclosed. 

I desire that a thorough investigation be given to the subject, and 
hereby appoint you a commission to proceed to New York for that pur¬ 
pose. I also desire that the manner in which the business generally 
at the special agents’ office at New York has been conducted for the 
past two years shall receive attention; and, in order to afford the fullest^ 
opportunity for a thorough investigation, you are hereby authorized to* 
exercise your discretion as to the methods and extent of the examina¬ 
tion. 

Upon the conclusion of your labors, which it is hoped will be pushed 
to an early termination, you will please submit a written report, in 
which you will embody such recommendations as, in your judgment, 
the ascertained facts and the interests of the Government demand. 

Very respectfully, 

h. McCulloch, 

Secretary. 

Messrs. Geo. C. Tichenor, James W. Davi£, O. L. Spaulding. 



4 


REPORT OF THE SECRET Ain OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 2. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D. ( 7 ., January 24, 1885. 

Gentlemen : Referring to the communication addressed you on the 
17th instant, appointing you a committee to investigate the special 
agents’ office at New York, I transmit herewith, for your information 
and such action as you may deem proper, copy of a letter from Mr. 
Fred. Wallroth, dated New York, January 16, 1885, in which he makes 
charges against said office relative to irregularities in the importation 
of certain tin-plate at that port; also, copy of a letter from Mr. John 
H. McKinley, dated New York, the 20th instant, alleging malfeasance 
in office on the part of Special Agent Brackett. 

I also enclose copy of an anonymous communication, dated New 
York, January 19, 1885, bearing on the same subject as above. 

The gentlemen named have been notified of the reference of their 
letters to you. 

Very respectfully, 

CHAS. E. COON, 
Assistant Secretary. 

Messrs. Geo. C. Tichenor, J. W. Davis, O. L. Spaulding, 

New York, N. Y. 


[Enclosure.] 

New York, 81 Nassau Street, January 16, 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully suggest that the name of A. K. Tingle, a special agent, be 
omitted from the commission which you are about to appoint to investigate the special 
agents’ office and hear complaints from citizens of New York and other places. There 
should be no whitewasher on the committee, but men of the class of Capt. C. C. Adams, 
(with whom, likewise Capt. Brackett, I have been acquainted during many years,) 
who^e honesty is unimpeachable, and whose integrity is away above that of your two 
Assistant Secretaries, because Capt. Adams would never have ignored, and has never 
ignored, a complaint made to him against any one believed to have defrauded the Gov¬ 
ernment, where it was his duty to investigate ; whereas your two Assistant Secretaries, 
when acting as Secretaries, ref used to investigate a charge made by me against one John 
S. Dickerson, and, although paid public servants, did not (perhaps dared not) even 
acknowledge the receipt of communications from me to the Department, which every 
citizen had a right to demand. 

Some years ago I notified the Government that large frauds w ere being committed in 
the importation of ‘ ‘ tin-plate ’ ’ by the firm in which said J. S. Dickerson was a partner, 
and by others in the trade. Several special agents were appointed to investigate. One 
of them was Capt. Brackett, and, at my expense, we weighed “tin-plate” on the docks 
and in the importers’ stores and investigated weighers’ returns. In one case we found 
boxes on the docks weighing 300 pounds and invoiced at 30 pounds. This little matter 
Mr. Tingle arranged with the importer. In another case we found exactly 100,000 
pounds difference against the Government between the invoice weight and the weighers’ 
returns in one shipment. What report to your Department w T as made on this investi¬ 
gation? I have been told that Mr. Tingle has said that it amounted to nothing. Whose 
fault was it, if it did not? It is the most ungrateful task a person can do to expose a 
Government thief or bribe-taker, but I may appear before the commission you will 
appoint and tell what I know of frauds against the Government, and if I should give 
to the press some papers not very complimentary to your two Assistant Secretaries, they 


REPORT OF T1IE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


5 


would have themselves only to blame if I retaliate on them for calling me a “crank,” 
which I have been told they have been doing. 

Believe me, your faithful servant, 

FRED. WALLROTH. 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 3. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. G., January 31, 1885. 

Sir : I beg to invite the attention of the Department to the enclosed 
slip, cut from the New York “World” of the 30th instant. In regard 
to the case of undervaluation mentioned in the article, it is proper for 
me to state that it was disposed of upon appraisement before I went to 
New York, under Department’s instructions of the 3d instant, to investi¬ 
gate the undervaluation of silks. It may be also pertinent to say that 
the firsp alluded to is one that receives large consignments of silks, 
which, according to the reports of the consuls and the statements of the 
examiners, are, as a rule, undervalued in the invoices. I make no com¬ 
ment upon the extraordinary statements attributed to Deputy Collector 
Bartram, except to say that the only fragment of truth in the article, so 
far as it relates to myself, is that, at the request of Assistant Appraiser 
Kent, I politely inquired of Mr. Bartram how it happened that he had 
appointed a merchant appraiser in the case referred to whose name 
was not upon the list furnished by the appraiser. No profane or vio¬ 
lent language was uttered by me on that occasion. Mr. Bartram readily 
showed me the papers in the case, and explained that he had taken 
the name of the gentleman appointed from a list furnished for another 
reappraisement. One of the chief obstacles to the just appraisement 
of silks has been the practice at New York of appointing as merchant 
appraisers members of firms engaged in the business of receiving con¬ 
signments from European manufacturers. 

There appears to have been a tacit understanding among the firms 
that they would protect each other from advances upon invoices involv¬ 
ing penal duties. With one of these importers as merchant appraiser, 
and others as swift witnesses to swear to a low valuation, invoices have 
seldom been advanced 10 per cent, or over. In view of these facts, 
the collector at New York has recently taken the appraisement [ap¬ 
pointment] of merchant appraisers into his own hands. 

Very respectfully, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

Special Agent . 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 4. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. (7., February 2, 1885. 

Sir: Your attention is invited to the enclosed publication from the 
“New York World” of the 30tli ultimo, containing statements, said 
to have been made by Deputy Collector Bartram, reflecting upon the 


6 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


officers of this Department. You are requested to call upon Mr. 
Bartram for an explanation of these statements, and such evidence as 
he may have tending to establish the alleged conspiracy set forth in 
said article. You will find herein enclosed, for your information, copy 
of a report upon the subject from Special Agent Tingle. 

Very respectfully, 

H. McCULLOCH, 

Secretary. 

Collector of Customs, New York City. 


No. 5. 

Custom-House, February 5, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your indorsement upon a letter from the Hon. Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury of date February 2, 1885, I have the honor to 
report as follows: 

Some time about the middle of January, Mr. Tingle came to my desk 
in the rotunda and asked me who appointed the merchant appraisers. 
I replied that I did. He then asked how it was that in appointing a 
merchant appraiser in the case of Megroz, Potier & Grosse some time 
since, I did not take a name from the list furnished by the appraiser. I 
replied that I had no recollection of not having done so, but to settle the 
matter I would get up the appeals. Upon looking at the papers for 
that date, we found that there were five reappraisements called for that 
day—two for Schroeder and three for Megroz, Potier & Grosse. On 
the appeals for Schroeder, Mr. Lewis, of Lewis Bros., headed the list fur¬ 
nished by the appraiser, and the name of C. Lambert, of Messrs. Dexter, 
Lambert & Co., headed the list furnished for Megroz, Potier & Grosse. 
As the goods in each case were similar, and the reappraisements were 
called for the same day, I followed a common practice by designating 
Mr. Lewis to act on all the cases. I made this explanation to Mr. 
Tingle. He replied that Mr. Kent, the appraiser, was greatly enraged 
because I had not appointed Mr. Lambert. I asked him what was the 
trouble with Mr. Lewis, and he replied that he imported the same line 
of goods that were under examination. I said to Mr. Tingle that, in 
my opinion, that was the very best reason that could be given for his 
appointment, the statute requiring the collector to appoint a mer¬ 
chant “ known to be well qualified , and believed to be disinterested and f ree 
from bias” and in no way binding him (the collector) to the names 
furnished by the appraiser. I then asked Mr. Tingle how it was that 
Mr. Lewis was considered a proper man in Schroeder’s case and an ob¬ 
jectionable one in the case of Megroz, Potier & Grosse. He replied that 
Mr. Kent said that Mr. Lewis had had an invoice raised not long ago 
himself, and he thought that he (Lewis) would like a chance to get 
square. This statement astounded me, and I expressed myself as 
forcibly, yet courteously, as I could upon the subject. I told Mr. 
Tingle that, in my opinion, it amounted to a conspiracy upon the part 
of the appraiser against the importer; that, in my opinion, when the 
appraiser had advanced an invoice his duties were completed there¬ 
with, and that the matter on appeal then passed to the hands of the 
United States general appraiser, and that in justice to the merchant 
and in accordance with the statutes, the collector was bound to appoint 
a merchant to act with him (the United States general appraiser) in 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


7 


the final reappraisement. I said to him that I have never been re¬ 
quested by but one person to appoint a named merchant appraiser, and 
that was by Captain Chalker, who, upon my remonstrating with him 
for making such a request, modified it by asking me to give him ‘ 4 a 
good man,” and acknowledged the impropriety of his request. Mr. 

Tingle replied, “Oh, Chalker is a d-d fool.’ 7 I told him I failed to 

see any difference in his position from that of Chalker, and asked him 
if he did not think he had better go a little slow. I expressed to him 
the great respect I had always entertained for him as an honorable and 
efficient officer, and he replied that he intended to do no man an in¬ 
justice. Before Mr. Tingle left I said to him, “How is it that in all 
these cases the United States general appraiser has agreed with the 
merchant appraisers 1 ? He is a sworn Government officer, and should 
have looked out for the interests of the G overnment. Is he corrupt, or 
is he incompetent? 77 His reply was, “Oh, he likes generally to agree 
with the merchant appraiser ; 77 which seemed to me puerile. Our con¬ 
versation was earnest, but courteous; and after some further remarks 
upon the unfortunate and complicated turn affairs were taking, he left. 
Mr. Tingle makes the assertion in his letter to the Secretary that the 
chief obstacle of the just appraisement of silks has been the practice of 
appointing merchant appraisers from members of firms engaged in the 
business of receiving consignments from European manufacturers, and 
then follows with a general charge against the importers of combining 
to protect each other as witnesses and merchant appraisers. He closes 
with this sentence: “ In view of these facts, the collector has recently 
taken the appraisement [appointment] of merchant appraisers into his 
own hands. 77 In regard to the terrible charge against the merchants 
of New York it may perhaps not become me to speak, (they are 
abundantly able to plead their own cause, and it strikes me the time 
has now arrived for them to begin;) but I may be permitted to say that 
the difference between the views of a manufacturer like Mr. Lambert 
and an importer like Mr. Lewis arises from the different directions in 
which they set out to ascertain the foreign market value. 

Mr. Lambert claims, as I was informed by Mr. Tingle, that it is impos¬ 
sible to ascertain the foreign market value of consigned silks, and that 
therefore they should be appraised under section 9 of the act of March 
3 1883 at the cost, &c. Mr. Lewis claims that silks are a standard 
article ’whose appraisement is not contemplated under section 9, act of 
March’ 3, 1883, and that the foreign market value is fixed by the price 
at which the manufacturer is willing to dispose of large lots of his 
goods and that to prove undervaluation it must be shown that the ex¬ 
porter receives more for his goods than the invoice price. With two 
classes of merchants, differing so radically, it becomes apparent at once 
that the merchant appraiser (with a United States general appraiser 
“who likes to agree with'him 77 ) becomes a very important factor in 


settling the dispute. , 

Your attention is invited to a report of the chamber of commerce on 
this question, a copy of which, I have no doubt, has been received by 
vou Two or three days before my conversation with Mr. Tingle you 
sent for me and said, “ Colonel, there appears to be a great deal of ex¬ 
citement just now on the subject of undervaluation. The special agents 
are on here to investigate the matter, and I will appoint the merchant 
appraisers myself for awhile. I want nothing done in our office on 
which the slightest suspicion can be hinged. 7 7 No reference was made 
to any particular case, and I said to you that ip making the appoint 


8 


REPORT OF TIIE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ments I had followed your instructions in regard to protests, viz., 
“that when a merchant, having appealed to a reappaaisement and 
protested in advance against the appointment of certain merchants as 
merchant appraisers, that appeal was to be respected, as there were 
plenty of reliable merchants in New York, and it was not desirable 
that litigation should be invited by appointing merchant appraisers 
who had been protested. 7 ’ 

You expressed no dissatisfaction with my action, and informed me 
that Mr. Tingle had no authority from you for the statement made in 
the last sentence of his letter. In regard to the character and standing 
in this city of Mr. W. H. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis Bros., whose ap¬ 
pointment was so distasteful to Mr. Tingle, I would refer the honorable 
Secretary of the Treasury to the President, to whom Mr. Lewis is well 
known. 

1 would respectfully suggest to the Secretary, in view of the fact that 
the merchant appraiser is the only man outside of a Government office 
who has any voice in deciding upon the fairness of an importer’s in¬ 
voice, that it would be a pertinent inquiry as to whether any appraiser 
has ever been approached by any special agent with the purpose of 
having any names of merchants to be submitted to the collector as mer¬ 
chant appraisers placed upon his list. 

V few words in regard to the alleged interview by the “World” re¬ 
porter. and I am through. I must respectfully decline to be held 
responsible for the sayings of the average New York reporter. As I 
was walking away from my desk one afternoon, at the close of busi¬ 
ness, 1 was accosted by a young gentleman, who informed me that he 
was a “World” reporter, and desired to know the name of the mer¬ 
chant appraiser appointed by me in the Megroz, Potier, & Grosse case. 

1 informed him that Mr. Lewis was the man, and that his appointment 
did not seem to have been satisfactory to the special agents. For the rest 
of the article this young man drew upon his imagination. Mr. Tingle 
called at my desk next day, and, when I made this explanation to him, 
he said that almost every day the reporters had something to say from 
him. whereas it was his practice to have nothing to say to reporters. 

I little thought that he would call the attention of the Department to 
the matter; but 1 thank him for so doing. 

1 n conclusion, I beg to vail attention to the inclosed clipping from 
the “Chicago Tribune” of January 31, embracing the statements of 
Special Agents Swift and Keefe, and to say that I never met either of 
these gentlemen in my life, and that I have no knowledge of the fact 
that they had been in New Y r ork on business until I so lately learned 
through the papers discussing this matter. It will be seen that, in 
their opinion, among their duties is that of recommending names for 
merchant appraisers to the collector. Also. 1L.J they do not hesitate 
to stamp me as an interested, if not a guilty, party. I respectfully re¬ 
quest that they be given an opportunity to establish my interest or 
guilt in the matter of appointing merchant appraisers. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

N. B. BARTRAM. 

P. S.—I learn to-day that two reappraisements of Megroz, Potier, & 
Grosse, which were under the special superintendence of Mr. Tingle, were 
decided yesterday, in which the collector appointed Mr. Constable, of 
Arnold, Constable & Co., as merchant appraiser, The invoices \*ere 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. 


9 


advanced in one case to 27 T % 8 T5 - per cent.; the reappraisement resulted 
in an advance of 4j- 0 per cent. In the other case the invoice was ad¬ 
vanced 17-j^o per cent.; the reappraisement fixed the advance at 2^ 
per cent. I presume Mr. Tingle will have some scurrility to advance 
concerning Mr. Constable. 

N. B. B. 

Hon. Wm. Robertson, 

Collector. 


No. 6. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , I). ( 7 ., January 24, 1885. 

Gentlemen : I enclose herewith, for your consideration in connec¬ 
tion with the investigation of the special agents’ office at New York, 
copy of a communication, dated the 23d instant, from Mr. Oscar Hesse, 
of Bed Bank, N. J., in which he prefers charges of irregularities on 
the part of special agents at New York. It is suggested tnat Mr. 
Hesse, who has been notified of the reference of his communication to 
you, be invited to appear personally before the commission. 

Verv respectfully, 

H. F. FRENCH, 
Assistant Secretary. 

Messrs. Geo. C. Tichenor, J. W. Davis, O. L. Spaulding. 


[Enclosure.] 

Red Bank, Monmouth Co., N. J., 

January 23, 1885. 

Dear Sir : Your favor of the 22d instant is at hand, and I herewith hand you further 
details. 

In 1871 I had positive information in regard to frauds upon the customs duties and 
fraudulent damage allowance by the importer, H. Seggermann, of New York city. I 
communicated with the Treasury Department in the spring of 1872, which Department 
placed the matter in the hands of the special agents. I met Special Agents Chalker and 
Lee at the Astor House, and was informed that in case of a successful termination the 
amount recovered would be divided as follows: One-half to the Government, one-fourth 
to the surveyor of the port, one-fourth to the special agents' office, and that the latter 
one-fourth would have to be divided between Brackett, Chalker, Lee, and myself. 

The books of the importer were seized by Chalker and Lee in the spring of 1872, and 
the amount recovered bv the Treasury was a little over $10,800. In the fall of 1872 I 
wrote to the Treasury that my reward was not forthcoming. A very short time after 
this complaint was made by me, Special Agent Chalker came to me one evening and 
took me to Captain Brackett’s private residence, who gave me a check on a banking 
house in Fine street, I believe. The amount of this check was within a small amount 
of $075, which is all the money 1 ever received from this case. In having given my 
information directly to the Treasury, in order to be the sole informant, my just reward 
fell $2,000 short of what it should have been. I had no remedy. I was directed by 
the Treasury to impart my information to the special agents, and I did so, and they 
kept $2,000. Not knowing how far-reaching their influence was in thus boldly appro¬ 
priating the above amount, I have patiently waited for a favorable opportunity to pre¬ 
sent my case. 

Your letter indicates that 1 may be called upon to testify before the committee, but, 
before I do, please inform me if on due investigation this amount will be returned to 
me. 

Awaiting your reply, I remain, yours, respectfully, 


Hon. H. McCulloch, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D, C, 


OSCAR HESSE. 



10 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 7. 

New York, February 18, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to the Department’s letter of the 26th ultimo, trans¬ 
mitting copy of a communication dated the 23d ultimo, from Mr. Oscar 
Hesse, of Red Bank, N. J., preferring charges of irregularities on the 
part of special agents of the Department at this port, we have the honor 
to report as follows: 

Upon our invitation, Mr. Hesse appeared before us on the 28tli ultimo, 
and made the affidavit herewith enclosed, marked “A.” From this 
document it will be seen that, while acknowledging the receipt from 
the special agents of one-sixteenth of the full amount of moiety accruing 
to the officers in the case, and admitting that he was told by Agent 
Chalker, when he gave the information, that such would be his share, 
he acquiesed therein in ignorance of his rights in the premises, and 
claims now that he was entitled to receive one-fourth of the amount 
distributed as moieties. 

Mr. Hesse again appeared before us, on the 12th instant, at the re¬ 
quest of Special Agent Brackett, and expressly stated to us that Agent 
Brackett was not the person referred to in his affidavit as having given 
him the bank-check, he having been mistaken in his identity, and he 
fully acquitted him of the charge he had made against him. 

On the day following we received from Mr. Hesse the letter herewith 
enclosed marked u B, ” and on the succeeding day the letter and en¬ 
closure herewith marked U C.” 

Special Agent Brackett expressly denies that he gave Mr. Hesse the 
check in question, or that he ever met him, to know him, until the 
12th instant. He (Brackett) also declares that he had nothing what¬ 
ever to do with the management of the Seggermann case, and did not 
share in the distribution of moieties therein. 

We find from the letter-press copy-books in the special agents’ office, 
copy of a report, dated June 20, 1872, from Special Agent Wm. G. Lee 
to Frank E. Howe, special agent in charge here at that time, from 
which it appears that the case of Henry Seggermann was managed by 
Agents Lee, Brush, and Chalker. 

The records of the custom-house here show that the sum of $10,810 
was recovered in the Seggermann case, of which sum $2,612.65 was 
distributed as awards to F. E. Howe, J. S. Chalker, W. G. Lee, and 
A. A. Brush, special agents, in the month of November, 1872. From 
the affidavit of Mr. Hesse, enclosed, it would seem he received one- 
fourth of the amount thus distributed within a short time after such 
distribution was made, such share being in accordance with the under¬ 
standing had with Agent Chalker at the time he (Hesse) gave his infor¬ 
mation to that officer. 

Very respectfully, GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, Special Agents. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

[Enclosure.] 

A. 

Mr. Oscar Hesse, of Red Bank, N. J., appeared before the commission on the 29th 
day of January, 1885, and made the following statements: 

My name is Oscar Hesse. I reside ^t the town of Red Bank, State of New Jersey. 
My age is forty years, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


11 


In the early part of the year 1872, I think in the month of January, I informed the 
Secretary of the Treasury, by letter written from New York city, that I was in pos¬ 
session of information to the effect that certain importations of merchandise were being 
undervalued and certain fraudulent claims for damage to imported merchandise were 
being allowed at the port of New York, in which certain customs officers were implicated. 

I received a letter from the Treasury Department, requesting me to report my in¬ 
formation to Special Agent Lee, at New York, whereupon I met Agent Lee, who referred 
me to Special Agent Chalker, to whom I immediately gave a list of the undervalued 
invoices and all my information concerning the same, and he at once undertook the 
investigation of the case. 

These invoices were five or six in number, and embraced orange and lemon candied 
peel, imported by Henry Seggermann, and were undervalued about 30 per cent. About 
six weeks after I gave Agent Chalker this information, I informed him of the receipt 
by Mr. Seggermann of another invoice of about $3,000 worth of goods, and, within a 
day or two afterwards, the books and papers of Mr. Seggermann were seized by Special 
Agents Chalker and Lee and the United States marshal, but the last-mentioned invoice 
was not found and seized, and was destroyed by Mr. Seggermann after the officers left, 
and Agent Chalker informed me no recovery was made on it. According to my recollec¬ 
tion, this seizure was made about the last of March or first of April, 1872. Subse¬ 
quently, at Agent Chalker’s request, I assisted him in examining and arriving at an 
understanding of the account books of Mr. Seggermann at his (Chalker’s) house in 
Jersey City. 

Some time in the summer of 1872, Agent Chalker informed me that the case had 
been settled, and the sum of $10,800 recovered from Seggermann; and it was not until 
then that I learned from him that the $3,000 invoice above mentioned had not been 
seized, and, in consequence, no amount of money was recovered on the same. At this 
time, and upon repeated occasions afterwards, I applied to Agent Chalker for my share 
as informer, but I received only evasive answers from him. 

Finally, in October or November of that year, 1872, I made complaint in writing to 
the Secretary of the Treasury, in which I gave the amount stated to have been recov¬ 
ered, and asked that the amount due me as informer should be paid me. Within a few 
days after I wrote the Secretary, Agent Chalker called in a carriage at my house in 
Jersey City and took me to Special Agent Brackett’s private residence in New York 
city. This was about 9 o’clock at night, and I was there introduced to Captain Brack¬ 
ett, who gave me his individual check on a bank in New York city for the sum of six 
hundred and some seventy dollars, the same being, as stated to me, one-sixteenth of 
the amount recovered in the case. I handed this check to Agent Chalker to collect 
from the bank, and by arrangement he met me on the following day and gave me the 
money ; at the same time he represented to me that as he had had a great deal of work 
and trouble in the case, he thought I ought to give him a part of the amount, which I 
declined to do, handing him, however, $10, which I said would only cover his carriage 
hire. 

After I had given the information to Agent Chalker concerning Mr. Seggermann’s 
undervalued invoices, he (Chalker) told me my share as informer would be one-sixteenth 
of the amount recovered, and he gave me a written memorandum to that effect, which 
I then acquiesced in, not at the time being informed as to my rights in the premises. 
I have since learned, and now claim, that, having given the original information to the 
Government in my letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, I was entitled to the full 
amount awarded as informer’s share, and that the portion thereof not paid me was 
wrongfully withheld from me. 

At the same time I gave information respecting the undervalued invoices I reported 
to Agent Chalker that Mr. Seggermann had secured damage allowances on certain im¬ 
portations of chiccory through certain false and fraudulent representations and conniv¬ 
ance of customs officers. Agent Chalker informed me afterwards, however, that 
nothing was recovered from Mr. Seggermann on that account. 

° OSCAR HESSE. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of January, A. D. 1885. 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

Special Agent. 


[Enclosure.] 


B. 


Red Bank, February 13, 1885. 


Dear Sir : I am very glad that I called on Brackett yesterday, as a few minutes’ con¬ 
versation with him and Chalker has reminded me of several points, their barefaced lying 
notwithstanding. 1 hope you understood me when I stated that Brackett did not hand 


12 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


me this check. Hand me is all I release him of. The check bore his signatures; and no 
introduction being given me to the party who handed me this check in Bleecker street 
when Captain Chalker took me there, I naturally supposed, by the signature, that it 
was Brackett, being furthermore told by Chalker that Brackett was to receive one- 
fourth of the informer’s one-fourth, and the balance to Lee, Chalker, and myself. 

Please ascertain, if possible, if Brackett teas in the habit of signing checks coming from 
the special agents' office, located at that time at 45 or 47 Broadway, in the fall of 1872; 
and get this check-book, if possible, because the more I recall this check to my mind, 
the more I am convinced of Brackett’s signature, and thj printed matter on the check 
identifying it as coming from the special agents’ office on a bank in Pine street. 

Respectfully, yours, 

G. C. Tichenor, Esq., New York. HESSE. 

c. 

[Enclosure.] 

Copy of answer to C. N. Brackett. 

Red Bank, February 14, 1885; 

Dear, sir: Your letter of the 13th is at hand. Your request I cannot grant. Al¬ 
though I have never met you before last Thursday, still your name is written in in¬ 
delible ink in my memory in connection with this case. I have simply released you 
before the commission as the party who handed me the check in Bleecker street. How 
this happened I have fully explained now to the commission. Your vindication rests 
with yourself; I cannot do it. 

Respectfully, yours, 

. HESSE. 


No. 8. 

New York. February 18, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to Department letter of the 24th ultimo, transmitting 
copy of a communication from Mr. Fred. Wallroth, dated the 16th 
ultimo, containing serious reflections upon certain officers of the De¬ 
partment, also upon the special agents’ office here, in connection with 
alleged irregularities in the importation of certain tin-plate, we have 
the honor to report, as follows: 

Mr. Wallroth. at our invitation, appeared before us on the 31st ultimo, 
and represented that a number of officers of the Government, including 
ex-Secretary Folger, ex-Commissioner of Internal Revenue Raum, Com¬ 
missioner Evans, ex-Solicitor Raynor, Internal-Revenue Collector M. 
M. Blake, and Special Agent Tingle, had been guilty of official miscon¬ 
duct in failing to take proper action upon information he had furnished, 
at different times within a great many years past, with respect to the 
non-payment of proper income-tax by Mr. J. S. Dickerson, of this city. 

It appearing to us that the matter had had the attention of the 
proper officers of the Government, as well as of Congress, and that it 
did not relate in any way to the special agents’ office here, we informed 
Mr. Wallroth that we were not authorized or disposed to make it a subject 
of investigation. Whereupon he declined to enter into the subject of 
the alleged irregularities in the importation of tin-plate referred to in 
his letter. 

It will be seen from the copy of a report, dated December 1 , 1878, 
from Special Agent Brackett, enclosed herewith, that the matter of tin¬ 
plate in question was thoroughly investigated by him. in conjunction 
with Mr. Wallroth, without results. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 


Hon. Hugh McCulloch, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


IS 


No. 9. 

New York, February 19, 1885. 

Sir: We duly received the Department’s letter of the 17th ultimo, 
with twelve enclosures, appointing us, with Special Agent James W. 
Davis, since deceased, a commission to investigate the action of the 
special agents of the Department at this port Avith respect to certain 
invoices of linen goods of Messrs. Watson & Girdwood, and also the 
manner in which the business generally of the special agents’ office 
here has been conducted for the past two years, and have the honor 
to submit the following report: 

We have given the subject of our instructions thorough and patient 
investigation, inviting all testimony tending to throw light upon the 
conduct and management of the office, and have accepted, when offered, 
voluntary statements of parties claiming to possess knowledge affect¬ 
ing it. 

As Special Agent Brackett, late chief of the office, was especially 
concerned in the charges preferred, we advised him fully of them, and 
extended to him opportunity to reply and to cross-examine witnesses. 
We forward herewith the testimony taken by us, and return the en¬ 
closures accompanying our instructions, which have been considered 
by us and form the basis of this report. 

The Watson & Girdwood linen case Avas the leading one presented, 
and the one to which our instructions particularly referred. The facts 
in the case, so far as important to its understanding, are briefly these: 
Watson & Girdwood are, and since 1879 have been, the NeAv York agents 
and consignees of William Liddell & Co., manufacturers of linen goods 
in Belfast. 

In January, 1882, complaint was made to the United States district 
attorney in New York that linen goods consigned by Liddell & Co. to 
Watson & GirdAvood were undervalued. The informer was referred to 
Special Agent Adams, then in charge of the New York special agents’ 
office. The latter called up the later invoices of this Arm, and obtained 
from the Department’s agent abroad price-lists of several manufact¬ 
urers of linen goods, including that of Liddell & Co., and certain sam¬ 
ples of linens. Whatever investigation was undertaken by Special 
Agent Adams was not concluded when he was relieved by Special Agent 
Brackett, in the December following. In July, 1883, the informer, 
Byrne, presented the case anew to Mr. Brackett, who procured from 
Mr. Adams, at Philadelphia, through the Department, such invoices, 
price-lists, &c., as the latter had taken with him when transferred to 
his new station. On their receipt, Mr. Brackett assigned the case to 
Special Agent Chalker for investigation and report, procuring from 
the Department’s agent abroad, and referring to Mr. Chalker, further 
price-lists and samples. The informer, aiding M t. Chalker in the in¬ 
vestigation, advised him he could locate none of the goods then in 
Watson & Girdwood’s store by case numbers, or as belonging to any 
given invoice, but he did know them by their list numbers, it Avas, 
however, concluded to await a new arrival of goods to this firm before 
action. On December 13, 1883, an invoice of linen goods from Will¬ 
iam Liddell & Co., consigned to Watson & GirdAvood, arrived by the 
steamship “State of Georgia,” and entry was made the next day. By 
request of Mr. Chalker the entire invoice was ordered to public store 
for examination. Upon appraisement the invoices were variously ad- 


14 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


vanced by Examiner Dutcher, resulting in an average advance of 9.51 
per cent., and was returned to the collector so advanced without the 
knowledge of the appraiser, though it bore his approval stamped upon 
it. Assistant Appraiser Birdsall and Examiner Dutcher united in the 
opinion, after a careful and thorough investigation, (page 2,) that no 
further advance than this was warranted. Mr. Chalker believed the 
advance should be greater; and, at his request, the appraiser recalled 
the invoices, and the goods were re-examined. The appraiser directed 
the invoice to be advanced 15 per cent., which was done, and an addi¬ 
tional duty and penalty was paid by Watson & Girdwood, who also 
advanced 15 per cent, upon entry two other importations then in gen¬ 
eral order. The advance, as explained to us, was brought about by an 
agreement between the appraiser and R. D. Jackson, representing the 
importers, that the appraiser should advance the “State of Georgia” 
invoice 15 per cent., and the importers should enter the two other im¬ 
portations at a like advance. Mr. Chalker, the assistant appraiser, and 
Watson & Girdwood supposed this was to be accepted without appeal, 
while the appraiser states it was done with a view to an appeal and a 
reappraisement. It was established upon the examination that the 
goods were standard goods, identified and known to the trade by cer¬ 
tain numbers, which also appeared in twenty-two invoices of Liddell 
& Go. to Watson & Girdwood, then in the hands of Mr. Chalker, and 
which had arrived between January 16 and November 3, 1883. 

Attention is now directed to a peculiar and noticeable transaction. 
The entry of December 14 was made by Girdwood, his partner, Watson, 
then being en route from Europe. Samuel Houston, of the firm of 
Dodge & Houston, the custom-house brokers of Watson & Girdwood, 
soon after the entry told Girdwood of the Government claim of under¬ 
valuation, advising him also that serious trouble was to be apprehended. 
After the recall of the invoice by the appraiser, Houston told Watson, 
who had assumed active control of the matter for his firm, that he 
could be of no further service, and advised the employment of R. D. 
Jackson, also a custom-house broker, versed, as he said, in customs 
law and possessed of exceptional influence with Treasury officials. 
Jackson came into the case through Houston about January 10, 1884, 
upon Watson sending him his individual check of $1,000. Jackson 
sought no evidence from Watson & Girdwood to disapprove undervalu¬ 
ation, but told the appraiser his clients were willing a 15 per cent, ad¬ 
vance should be made on the “State of Georgia” invoice, and that 
they would voluntarily advance to the same amount the two following 
invoices just arrived. He then sought to dissuade Special Agents 
Brackett and Chalker from action upon the twenty-two invoices en¬ 
tered within the year preceding. He had frequent interviews with 
them, and on the last of January was advised by Mr. Brackett that noth¬ 
ing further would be done with those invoices. (See enclosure “A.”) 
The special agents deny that he influenced this decision, but if he did 
not it is certain he magnified his services to his clients, for he at once, 
through Houston, demanded the payment of $4,750 additional for his 
services and disbursements, with the condition that it be paid in cur¬ 
rency and not by check. Watson, without the knowledge of Gird¬ 
wood, received from his bank a certified check upon another bank 
and being identified there obtained $6,800 in currency, and drew indi¬ 
vidually upon William Liddell & Co. for that amount. He paid this 
money to Houston in the hall of the building in which Dodge & Hous- 


Report of the secretary of the TREASURY. 15 

ton liad their office. It was to be applied as follows: $4,750 to be paid 
to Jackson, $500 to be paid for a purpose Houston would not disclose, 
$500 to be retained by Houston for his services, and $50 to be paid to 
his clerk. The remaining $1,000 was the sum Watson had previously 
paid by his own check, and Houston then returned this to him by his 
check. Both the $500 paid to Houston and the $50 paid to his clerk 
were voluntarily paid by Watson, who then believed unusual service 
had been rendered his firm in passing the goods. Early in February 
two invoices of the Liddell goods, just arrived, were advanced by Wat¬ 
son & Girdwood on entry 8 per cent., and further advanced by order 
of the appraiser 7 per cent. Watson appealed, contrary to the advice 
of Jackson, and upon reappraisement the entered value was sustained. 
From this time forward Liddell & Co. invoiced goods of the qualities 
of those imported per the u State of Georgia’ 7 15 per cent, higher than 
that invoice. 

On March 7, Mr. Brackett forwarded to the Department Mr. Chalker’s 
report of that date of the action taken on the “State of Georgia” and 
the four following invoices; but no reference was made to the twenty- 
two preceding invoices, and no report was thereafter made to the De¬ 
partment or to the collector or to the district attorney touching these 
or other back invoices, until explanation was asked by the Department 
of Special Agents Brackett and Chalker, under date of January G, 1885. 

On Monday morning, February 11, 1884, Examiner Dutcher handed 
to Girdwood, in the office of Watson & Girdwood, $100, stating it was 
given to him by Houston, and requesting it to be paid to the persons 
entitled to it. Mr. Dutcher is entitled to the benefit of his statement 
to us, that he took the money from Houston on the previous Saturday 
afternoon, to escape his importunities to accept a present, with the in¬ 
tention of giving it to Watson & Girdwood at the earliest opportunity. 
Girdwood, who up to that time was ignorant of the payment of money 
by Watson, handed the money to the latter on his coming to the office 
a few minutes later, repeating to him Dutcher’s statement, with the 
expression of his own belief that Watson had been imposed upon by 
Houston and Jackson. Watson at once sought Houston, charged him 
with improper use of the $100, and demanded what disposition he had 
made of the $500 he had received for an unexplained purpose. Hous¬ 
ton then admitted the payment of the $100 to Dutcher and the deposit 
of the remaining $400 in bank to his own account. The next day he 
returned it to Watson. Early in the summer Girdwood wrote to Super¬ 
vising Special Agent Martin, inquiring if the money which he had then 
learned his partner had paid to Jackson in compromise had gone into 
the Treasury. He was informed it had not; that the only money paid 
in was the additional duties on the “ State of Georgia” and subsequent 
invoices. This fact he made known to Watson and Liddell, and the 
latter brought suit against Dodge & Houston and Jackson for the recov¬ 
ery of the money early in August, 1884. From February until after 
this suit was brought Watson & Girdwood experienced no opposition 
to the passing of their Liddell consignments. 

The attention of United States District Attorney Boot having been 
called to the matter by the commencement of this suit on September 4, 
he asked the collector for the twenty-two invoices before referred to, 
and upon examination finding five of them still within the year in 
which back duties were recoverable, procured their return to the ap¬ 
praiser. 


16 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY 1 OF THE TREASURY. 

From the foregoing statement of facts it is seen that the investigation 
of the twenty-two invoices ceased about the last of January. They had 
been the subject of investigation for months. They contained numbers 
found in the ‘‘State of Georgia” invoice. It was shown that these 
numbers represented standard goods well known to the trade by such 
numbers, and the importers admitted their undervaluation. The im¬ 
porters themselves had completed the case for the Government. At 
the point where success was probable the case ivas dropped. The important 
and leading subject of investigation had been these invoices. The 
“State of Georgia” case, while important in itself, was an incident to 
and had been relied upon in aid of the main investigation, but it was 
made the subject of a report to the Department, while the original and 
main case dropped out of sight. The Department was not informed of 
it, nor was it reported to the collector or to the United States attorney 
for such action as he might deem proper. In our opinion this should have 
been done. The information came originally from the district attorney’s 
office; but aside from this the law imposed an imperative duty upon the 
special agents. Here was a confessed violation of the customs laws, and 
section 15 of the act of June 22, 1874, expressly makes it “the duty of 
any officer or* person employed in the customs-revenue service of the 
United States, upon detection of any violation of the customs law, forth¬ 
with to make complaint thereof to the collector of the district, whose 
duty it shall be promptly to report the same to the district attorney in 
which such frauds shall be committed.” It was the duty of the special 
agents to have reported the case; they were not to anticipate what other 
officers might think fit to do. Even if a prosecution of the firm was 
not advisable, (and the United States attorney should have been con¬ 
sulted upon this point,) it is certain that the year in which back duties 
might be collected had not expired, and steps ought to have been taken 
to recover them. It will be noted that the district attorney, when the 
invoices came into his hands in the September following, did take steps 
to recover the back duties on the five invoices yet falling within the 
year. It is to be presumed if the facts had been reported to him in 
January he would then have taken similar action upon all of them. 
Special Agents Brackett and Chalker say the recovery of back duties 
did not occur to them ; but they were officers of long service and ex¬ 
perience, and precedents for such action were to be found at this and 
other ports. Such action was not uuusual. Appraiser Ketchum says 
that with the information before him derived from the “State of 
Georgia ’ ’ importation, had his attention been called to the twenty-two 
back invoices, he would have felt in duty bound to call the collector’s 
attention to them, (pages 53-55 testimony;) and Chief Clerk Wright, of 
the law office of the custom-house, says that had all the facts been laid 
before him, he should have advised sending the case to the district at¬ 
torney for his action. (Page 169.) 

By reference to the testimony of Deputy Collector Palmer, (page 
59,) it will be seen that his advice to Mr. Brackett, to which the latter 
refers in his report of January 10, 1885, had reference to the invoices 
first called up by Special Agent Adams. It should be remembered 
that the decision in the Auffmordt case, to which Mr. Palmer refers in 
his testimony, was subsequent to the investigation of the twenty-two 
invoices by Messrs. Brackett and Chalker. 

We believe Messrs. Brackett and Chalker omitted a plain duty, but 
positive evidence is lacking to prove that this was brought about by 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


17 


corrupt influences. It is clear that Mr. Jackson procured from Watson 
a sum of money much larger than his legitimate services were worth. 
He first received $1,000, and when assured that the special agents 
would not act on the back invoices, he demanded and received a further 
sum of $1,750 in currency, a total of $5,750, most of which must have 
been received for services touching the back invoices, for it appears he 
suggested or readily acquiesced in the 15 per cent, advance on the 
‘‘State of Georgia” invoice, and thereby put in peril the back in¬ 
voices and furnished damaging evidence to the Government. He may 
have kept the entire $5,750; but it is so extravagant and unconscionable 
a fee for a service, a part of which is open to the criticism of being 
hostile to his clients, that it casts a suspicion upon the motives and 
actions of any officer who contributed to results he was seeking. 

The dropping of the case being so nearly coincident in time with the 
payment of this money, is unfortunate for the reputation of the officers, 
however blameless they may be. 

The procuring by Brackett from Jackson of a written statement that 
he had j)aid no money to any one in the special agents’ office, because 
of a mere office rumor, suggests haste in meeting a charge before it is 
made, but is not inconsistent with innocence. 

Mr. Girdwood says that in June he was told by Mr. Brackett, with 
a confirmation from Chalker, that the special agents’ office received 
some $3,000 of this money. This was in response, he testifies, to his 
demand for a voucher for moneys paid the Government in the matter 
of the back invoices. (Page 246.) Brackett and Chalker, upon a sec¬ 
ond examination upon this point, say that if there was a conversation 
about money, and they think there was, it referred to the money col¬ 
lected on the “State of Georgia” and subsequent invoices. (Pages 
143, 162, 289, 305.) While we give them the benefit of this statement, 
it is improbable that Girdwood should ask about this money, as he 
already knew its amount, and that it had gone into the Treasury. 

On the trial of the case of Liddell vs . Dodge & Houston and Jack- 
son, the judge, in his charge to the jury, pointedly called attention to 
the payment of this large sum of money in currency and the unusual 
and suspicious circumstances surrounding it. (See charge, with en¬ 
closures, returned herewith.) 

Oscar E. Finke testifies that on the day, as he remembers it, that this 
charge was given, Mr. Brackett came from the court room to his office 
somewhat excited, and dispatched him for Mr. Jackson, who returned 
word that he would call on his way home ; that Brackett again sent for 
Jackson, who then came in and had a long private interview with 
Brackett and Chalker. (Pages 186, 187.) 

If a part of the money had gone to the special agents, such an inter¬ 
view would not be unlikely in view of what the judge had just said, 
but Brackett says he remembers no such interview. Chalker testifies 
to an interview between the three, but gives the Boyd glass case as the 
subject of conversation. This must have occurred earlier than the date 
fixed by Finke, as Jackson had retired from the Boyd case early in July, 
These circumstances reflect unfavorably upon the decision as to the back 
invoices, but are not necessarily connected with it. 

While, as we have before said, we find both of these officers omitted 
a plain duty, the evidence does not convince us that this came about 
through corrupt influences. 

2 A 


18 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


During the progress of our investigation the following resolution ot 
the United States grand jury, adopted February 6, 1885, was handed us 
by United States Attorney Boot. 

u Resolved, That we respectfully call the attention of the United States 
attorney to the fact that the goods of Watson & Gird wood have, accord¬ 
ing to their statements, been unreasonably detained in the custom-house 
si nee last September. 7 7 (See enclosure “ B. 7 7 ) 

We deem it our duty to consider this complaint, as it was found to 
reach the special agents 7 office. We found that the goods of this firm 
had been held for months by the customs authorities, and that their busi¬ 
ness had been injured thereby, but good reasons for this action were not 
apparent. While the Government should have its customs revenue, it 
owes it to the importer that collection should be made without unneces¬ 
sary annoyance or delay. A mere statement of the facts in the case 
referred to is, in our opinion, a criticism of the action taken. 

It should be remembered that on the advance of the “ State of Geor¬ 
gia 7 7 invoice by the appraiser, the importers advanced two other invoices 
15 per cent, on entry. Like goods thereupon were invoiced abroad at 
this advanced value, and they passed the custom-house unchallenged 
until September. 

On the 16th day of August, evidences of renewed activity appeared 
in the special agents 7 office. Special Agent Brackett on that day asked 
the appointment of Lawrence J. Byrne, and on September 24 he was 
appointed by the Treasury Department to assist Special Agent Chalker 
in investigating the importations of this firm. The first entry of their 
goods after this appointment was after the commencement of the suit of 
Liddell vs. Dodge et al ., and on September 29, when an invoice of seventy - 
seven lines or qualities of linen goods arrived by the steamship “City 
of Berlin. 77 The invoice did not reach the examiner until October 8, 
(page 810,) after the importers began asking the reason of delay. It 
was returned advanced on eighteen articles from 8 to 16.i per cent., and 
an appeal was taken October 31. Fifty-nine qualities were not advanced. 
The reappraisement was postponed from time to time, on the part of the 
Government, until December 17, when the appraiser recalled the in¬ 
voice from the reappraisement board, and advanced it, as to all articles 
not before advanced, in various amounts, and returned it December 26. 
From this second advance the importers appealed to a merchant ap¬ 
praisement ; but, though early action was urged by the importers, the 
merchant appraiser was not sworn until January 17, 1885. The reap¬ 
praisement was concluded on February 9, and resulted in advancing 
only seven qualities in the entire invoice, an increase of but 2.3 per 
cent, upon the entered value. Nearly four months and a half had been 
consumed in reaching this result. In the mean time $25,000 worth of 
the importers 7 goods had been piled up in public store and in general 
order, and they were unable to pass them and fill orders taken on the 
faith that the United States Government would not unnecessarily em¬ 
barrass private business. The question was not a new one. The investi¬ 
gation had continued since July, 1883—indeed, since January, 1882. 
The importers had acquiesced in the advance made on the “ State of 
Georgia 77 invoice; had advanced subsequent invoices to the figure named 
by the appraiser; had offered the customs officials access to their books 
and papers; and it would seem that abundant opportunity and time had 
been afforded for an intelligent and final decision. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


19 


It should be remembered in this connection that the importers, by 
their attorney, unsuccessfully appealed to the general appraiser for the 
delivery of the goods in his possession, which had not been advanced 
by the appraiser, offering to leave samples and to furnish the securities 
required by the customs regulations in such cases. (Page 320.) It was 
soon after this that the invoice was recalled from the reappraising board, 
an unusual proceeding, and all the goods advanced. 

Another case, known as the Bahmann & Hoehn u glass-eye case, 1 7 was 
called to our attention. We found the facts to be briefly these: In 
August of last year, a man calling himself ‘‘James Ferguson’ 7 informed 
Captain Brackett, by cable from abroad, that Bahmann, who was then 
on his return from Europe to New York, would attempt to smuggle a 
quantity of artificial eyes. Agent Brackett put the case in the hands 
of Inspector G. Frank Moseman, who called to his aid Inspectors Swayze 
and Hussey. On the arrival of Bahmann in New York, the goods were 
found concealed upon the person of his wife, and were seized. In ex¬ 
amining his baggage certain papers were found in the German language, 
which, upon translation by Oscar Finke, showed fraudulent importation 
of other goods, which it was found had gone into stock and could not 
be identified by the customs officers. A search-warrant was sworn out 
and the store was placed in charge of officers of the special agents 7 
force, and the business of the firm suspended from the 26th of August 
until the 11th of September. Bahmann and Hoehn were young Ger¬ 
mans, speaking our language imperfectly, and ignorant of their legal 
/rights. r. i>. Jackson was employed by the firm. He demanded 

/of them $3, OOOjj^-which they paid $400 from their own resources, and 
the balance was borrowed from their friend's^ Soon after he demanded 
of them an additional sum of $5,500, which they were unable to and 
refused to pay. About this time they substituted their broker, Mr. 
Baese, for Jackson, and the latter, upon the request of Baese for the 
money in his hands less a reasonable fee for his services, returned $2,000. 
Mr. Dudley F. Phelps, who had been retained in the case as attorney 
by Jackson, was continued by Baese. In the fraudulent importation 
case no defence was interposed by Bahmann & Hoehn, and it was set¬ 
tled by their payment to the Government of its claim of $3,571.98. 
(Page 363.) Bahmann pleaded guilty to the charge of smuggling, and 
paid a fine of $250. The full amount of money paid by them appears 
as below: 

To Jackson. 

In settlement of the fraudulent importation case 

Account of Baese rendered as follows: 

Suit United States vs. Bahmann & Heohn, district New York ; suit United 


States vs. Fred. Bahmann, “Ems,” New Jersey: 

To attorneys’ fee, our fee, fine, and expenses... $2,125 00 

To attendance at marshal’s and services. 25 00 


2,150 00 

It will be seen that while the Government received $3,571.98, pri¬ 
vate parties received $2,900, indicating that the laws of the United 
States are not always invoked for the sole purpose of subserving the 
public interest. It came out through the voluntary statement of In¬ 
spector Moseman to us, (page 147,) that upon the settlement of the 
cases he received $200 from Baese through Phelps. Moseman 7 s under¬ 
standing seems to have been that Baese was to pay $250, to be divided 


$1,000 00 
3,571 98 












20 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

equally between himself and Brackett, but that Brackett had pre¬ 
viously borrowed $50 of Baese, which, being deducted from the $250, 
left but $200 to come into his hands, and of which he paid $75 to 
Brackett. This Brackett denies, and we should give him the benefit 
of the doubt raised by evenly-balanced testimony were it not for the 
circumstance to which we shall now allude. Mr. Baese, who testified 
reluctantly, said that during the progress of the cases he called at the 
special agents 7 office to inquire about them, and in an interview he 
then had with Brackett, at the latter’s request he loaned him $50, but 
took no evidence of indebtedness therefor; that when the cases were 
ended, understanding that $250 was to be paid to Brackett and Mose- 
man, he left that sum, less his loan of $50, with Phelps for that purpose. 
(Page 221.) He supposed the matter settled until February 3, when 
Brackett called upon him and paid him the $50, taking his receipt for it. 
Brackett says he borrowed the money in November, to be paid in a 
short time, or when he should get his check, (page 295,) but did not 
repay it, nor speak to Baese about it, until February 3, during the pen¬ 
dency of this investigation. Mr. Phelps, who, prior to this date, had 
been informally before us, testifies that he told Brackett of his inter¬ 
view with us, and that he had related to us the fact of this money tran¬ 
saction ; that Brackett replied that the $50 was a private matter, and 
that he intended to pay it. He appears at once to have sought Mr. 
Baese and paid him $50. taking his receipt therefor. We are satisfied 
from Baese’s testimony that he never expected the return of this money, 
and we are confirmed in this opinion by the surprise expressed by 
Baese to Phelps immediately after its payment. (Pages 205, 206.) It 
appears, also, from Brackett’s own testimony, that he never borrowed 
money of Baese at any other time. (Page 363.) 

In view of all the testimony, we are compelled to accept Moseman’s 
statement as true , that he divided this money with Brackett. In this case 
we also find that Oscar E. Finke, who translated the German papers, 
received $100 voluntarily paid him by the firm after the release of the store. • 
He had acted as an interpreter between them and the officers and aided 
them in other ways. As an expression of their gratitude for his kind¬ 
ness, they offered to him and he accepted this money, but without intent 
of either party to violate the law. 

Some time after the settlement of the Bahmann & Hoehn cases, Spe¬ 
cial Agent Brackett certified to the Department an application made 
over the signature of ‘‘James Ferguson” for award as informer in the 
fraudulent importation case. (Page 214.) It coming to our knowledge 
that this was an assumed name of the person giving the information as 
to the intended smuggling of glass eyes, and the question having been 
raised that he was not entitled to an award in the fraudulent importa¬ 
tion case, such information having been derived from the discovery and 
translation by Oscar Finke of the papers found in Bahmann’s baggage, 
we addressed a communication to the Department suggesting that action 
be deferred with respect to the award. Special Agent Brackett con¬ 
tends that as the cablegram led to seizure of the trunk and the discovery 
of the papers, the person sending the cablegram gave the original in¬ 
formation in the case. In our opinion, the facts do not warrant this 
conclusion; on the contrary, it appears that the original information in 
the fraudulent importation case was obtained by Oscar Finke from the 
papers taken from Bahmann’s baggage. 

We again refer to Mr. Moseman’s testimony, and call attention to his' 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


21 


statement that in May, 1884, Inspector John R. Lawrence , an attach& of 
the special agents’ office, and himself seized at the works of the Bar- 
hour Flax-Spinning Company, at Paterson, N. J., certain flax imported 
from Canada and claimed by the customs officers to have been fraudu¬ 
lently entered at frontier ports as tow. After the seizure of it, in com¬ 
pliance with Mr. Barbour’s request that they give it no publicity, he 
handed Moseman $200 at his store in New York to be divided equally 
between Lawrence and himself. While Moseman positively asserts 
this to be true, Lawrence, when he was before us, while not denying it, 
replied, when asked if he received any of that money, “I don’t admit 
anything.” (Page 274.) We have no doubt the money was paid as 
Moseman states. 

Iu this connection we invite attention to the testimony of M. Fox 
(page 207) and Charles J. Fox, (page 210,) in which they charge In¬ 
spector Lawrence with proposing to them to assist one Graves, a part¬ 
ner of said M. Fox, to smuggle a quantity of precious stones into the 
United States, Graves being then about to return from a visit to Europe. 
Lawrence virtually admits making the proposition, but says it was 
made for the purpose of learning when and upon what ship Graves was 
expected, and whether he had precious stones in his possession which 
he intended to smuggle. (Page 274.) Whether Lawrence made this 
proposition with intent to join in an unlawful enterprise, or from an 
over-zeal for the service, we express no opinion. In the most favorable 
view which can be taken of the transaction, the officer subjected him¬ 
self to criticism and deserved censure. 

The testimony we have taken discloses instances of unsuccessful ef¬ 
forts to obtain money, made sometimes by customs officers and some¬ 
times by private parties claiming to have exceptional influence at the 
custom-house and at the Treasury Department. An instance is cited 
in the case of Henry Matier & Co., as appears in the testimony of Mr. 
Mark Finlay. (Page 175.) 

A notable instance is found in the case of D. A. Lindsay, against 
whom a claim was made up for $144,000, at the instance of the special 
agents’ office. Mr. Lindsay was not only subjected to the expense and 
annoyance of a vexatious inquiry into his business affairs provoked by 
this claim, which was subsequently abandoned by the Government upon 
the advice of the district attorney, but his importations were stopped 
for some ten months, resulting in business embarrassments and seriously 
affecting his commercial and social standing. (Page 229, testimony of 
William Heartt.) 

About August 1, 1884, (page 225,) thefts of merchandise from the 
public stores were reported to Mr. Brackett, who detailed Inspectors 
Lawrence and Hussey to investigate them. (Page 266.) They reported 
evidence looking to the guilt of certain Government employes, but Mr. 
Brackett was of the opinion that it was not sufficient to warrant their 
arrest. (Pages 267, 330.) This might be true. But this did not relieve 
him of the clear duty of pressing a sharp and vigorous investigation. 
It was of the last importance that these depredations cease and at once, 
and he should have seen to it that no rest be taken until the guilty 
parties were found and punished. He seems, instead, to have dropped 
it when suspicion pointed to certain persons, one of whom, while under 
this cloud, received promotion in the appraiser’s department. Later on, 
by the efforts of another officer, the suspected parties were found to 
be the guilty ones, and upon their arrest the depredations ceased. 


22 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


A practice is found to prevail in the special agents’ office at this port 
which we suggest would be more honored in the breach than in the 
observance. We refer to the signing of seizure reports by the special 
agent in charge when not making the seizure in person, to the exclu¬ 
sion sometimes of subordinates who actually took part in the seizure, 
and to what seems to have been an invariable rule, that the subordinate 
divide Ms moieties , however insignificant, with his chief. In our opinion, 
the seizure reports should be signed by the seizing officer, and no other. 
The report would then be true in fact, and give credit to the proper 
person. If he be a subordinate, his chief, it is presumed, will not leave 
the Department in doubt how far he himself contributed to a successful 
result when he comes to make a formal report. The acceptance by the 
chief officer of a part of a moiety earned by his subordinate is possibly 
matter of taste', but it seems to us that the self-respect of both parties 
and the discipline of the force would be best maintained by leaving to 
each the money he is recognized by the law to have earned. 

In addition to the sterling price-list for 1882 of Wm. Liddell & Co., 
Special Agent Adams had received, and had in his possession at the 
time the Watson & Girdwood case came to Mr. Brackett’s attention, 
price-lists and certain samples of John S. Brown & Sons, Henry Matier 
& Co., The Ulster Spinning Company, and of other manufacturers of 
linens at Belfast. These came into the hands of Mr. Brackett, Avho 
subsequently received from the Department’s agent abroad a large 
number of price-lists, special quotations, and samples from different 
manufacturers of linens in Ireland and Scotland whose products come 
to. this country consigned either to their agents or to purchasing im¬ 
porters. This information was important, and had been obtained with 
much effort, and at considerable expense to the Government. It was 
all referred to Special Agent Chalker, who does not seem to have utilized 
it to the extent even of placing it in the hands of the appraising officers. 
Nevertheless, it appears that the consignments of certain of these man¬ 
ufacturers, notably of John S. Brown & Sons, were found by Assistant 
Appraiser Birdsail and Examiner Dutcher to have been greatly under¬ 
valued, and advances made by them were sustained on reappraisement. 

Mr. Chalker excuses his apparent dereliction of duty in this regard 
on the ground that he was not allowed proper opportunity to attend to 
the same; in fact, that his time was so occupied and his attention so 
constantly distracted by other work assigned him, as to prevent his 
giving proper attention even to the Watson & Girdwood case. 

Mr. Brackett seeks relief from responsibility in the management of 
the Watson & Girdwood case, and in the use of the other information 
named, because he had intrusted it to Mr. Chalker. He also claims 
justification for apparent neglect of other matters coming to his office, 
especially those relating to undervaluation, for the reason that his time 
and attention as well as that of his assistant agents, Chalker and Gray, 
was necessarily and largely occupied in supervising the work and en¬ 
deavoring to utilize the services of an unnecessarily large, partially 
inexperienced, and more or less inefficient force of subordinates, most 
of whom had been assigned to him unasked, and the discharge or trans¬ 
fer of a number of whom he had recommended to the Department 
without success. 

Without indorsing this explanation of Mr. Brackett as sufficient, 
we feel bound to report that the force of subordinates assigned to him 
was largely in excess of the needs of the office, and many'of them un - 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


23 


qualified for the service to be performed. Notwithstanding the recent 
reductions made by the Department, we believe that a further reduc¬ 
tion ought to be made at once of at least 50 per cent, of the special 
agency force at this port. 

Messrs. Brackett and Clialker are old and experienced officers of the 
Department. Their records of long service are not without evidences 
of earnest, faithful, and useful endeavors in the interest of the Govern¬ 
ment, which have in times past commended them to the confidence of 
the Department and their associate officers. In reviewing their acts 
which have been the subjects of this investigation, due weight should 
be given to these considerations; and if duties and responsibilities 
have been imposed upon them beyond their ability to properly dis¬ 
charge, such fact should also be considered in measuring their account¬ 
ability. 

The duties of special agents of the Treasury Department, as defined 
by law and regulations, are of a delicate and responsible nature, re¬ 
quiring for their efficient and proper discharge a high order of intelli¬ 
gence, integrity, and business training, united with good habits and 
gentlemanly bearing. 

Holding the relation of confidential officers to the Secretary, who is 
often obliged to rely upon their information and advice, and being 
often the medium of communication between the Department and the 
chief officers of customs, they should be thoroughly informed in cus¬ 
toms laws and regulations and qualified to consider and report upon all 
questions affecting the administration of the customs laws. It is pecul¬ 
iarly their duty to aid the Department and the administrative officers 
of the customs in correcting abuses in methods of conducting the pub¬ 
lic business and in the detection and prevention of frauds upon the rev¬ 
enues. While it may be necessary in instances for them to obtain in¬ 
formation by indirect means, what are commonly known as “ detective 
methods” should not be resorted to, as they are unnecessary and in¬ 
compatible with their service. To do their work effectively, they 
should be familiar with the provisions of the tariff and competent to 
investigate and consider questions of classification constantly arising. 

The prevailing custom of undervaluing merchandise subject to ad 
valorem duties makes it necessary that they should giye special study 
and attention to the subject, but it is equally their duty to refrain from 
all attempts at administrative functions, while they should freely advise 
with, and fully communicate to, the Department and the proper officers 
of the customs the result of their investigations. They have no right 
or color of authority to obstruct the course of public business, either by 
interference with tiie prerogatives of other customs officers or by the 
detention of importations.* When they conspire or join hands with 
brokers or others in misleading, intimidating, or improperly favoring 
importers, they violate their official trust and deserve condemnation. 

Yery respectfully, 

* GEO. C. TICHENOB, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


24 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 10. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary^ 

Washington , I). ( 7 . , February 24, 1885. 

Gentlemen : Referring to that portion of your report of the 19th 
instant, on the investigation of the special agents’ office at New York, 
in which it is stated that the force of subordinate officers assigned to the 
office in question is largely in excess of the needs of the service, and 
that many of them are disqualified for the duties to be performed, I 
have to request that you submit at once a list of the names of persons 
employed under the direction of the special agents at New York whose 
services, in your judgment, may be dispensed with without detriment 
to the interests of the Government. 

Verv respectfully, 

H. McCULLOCH, 

Secretary. 

Mr. George C. Tichenor and Mr. O. L. Spaulding, 

Special Agents , P. 0. Box 1920, New York City. 


No. 11. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York , February 25, 1885. 

Sir: Acknowledging receipt of the Department’s letter of the 24th 
instant, directing us to “submit at once a list of the names of the persons 
employed under the direction of the special agent at New York, whose 
services,” in our judgment, may be dispensed with without detriment 
to the interests of the Government, we have the honor to report as 
follows: 

Having conferred with Special Agent Ayer and other officers whose 
opportunities enable them to correctly judge of the character, qualifica¬ 
tions, and the necessity of the employment of the persons now on duty 
with the special agent in charge of the second special agency district, 
we now submit the following list of persons whose services may be dis¬ 
pensed with, viz : 

Secial inspectors of customs. —John Ramsay, John R. Lawrence, 
James A. Dodge, Samuel W. Swayze. 

Paid from fraud appropriation .— Matthew Stewart, Geo. M. Storrs, J. 
W. Wilson. 

Inspector G. Frank Moseman is an active and intelligent officer. 
Were it not for the facts reflecting upon his character which appear in 
our report of the 19th instant, we should advise continuing him in the 
service. Whether his voluntary statement to us of the official miscon¬ 
duct of himself and other officers warrants his retention we express no 
opinion. 

Inspector James R. O’Beirne for the past year and a half has been on 
independent duty at the public stores by authority of the Department. 
We are not prepared now to express an opinion as to the value of his 
services. 

In addition to the names appearing on the list enclosed with the De¬ 
partment’s letter, we find that Inspectors John M. Wilson, T. J. Don- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


25 


ohue, and Thos. Brown, from the surveyor’s office, and Watchman Oscar 
Requa, from the collector’s office, are detailed for duty at the special 
agents’ office. Of these we are of the opinion that Mr. Requa’s ser¬ 
vices can be dispensed with, and recommend that he be ordered back 
to the collector’s office. 

Concerning the value and need of the services of Michael Harrigan 
and of Inspectors O’ Donohue and Brown, we withhold our opinion 
pending an investigation which will be the subject of an early report; 
meantime we deem it important that they be retained in the service. 

Owing to the absence from the city of Special Agent Fox, we have 
not thought proper to report as to the force employed under his direc¬ 
tion at this time. 

Verv respectfullv, 

GEO. C. TIGHENOR, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, Special Agents. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 12. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York , March 2, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to our letter of the 25th ultimo, relating to the force 
of subordinate officers and employes attached to the special agency 
service at this port, we have the honor to submit the following sugges¬ 
tions : 

The names of the following employes of the special agents’ office here 
are carried upon what is commonly called the “fraud roll,” viz : H. A. 
Moore, at $6; T. J. O’Sullivan, at $6; J. C. Cummings, at $4; D. B. 
Harrison, at $4; W. Kryzanowski, at 4; Matthew Stewart, at $4; George 
M. Storrs, at $4; Michael Harrigan, $3, aggregating $39 per diem; 
making a total annual disbursement on this account at this port alone 
of $14,235. 

These men are permanently employed, not on account of anyi partic¬ 
ular information possessed by them respecting frauds upon the customs 
revenue, but merely because of their qualifications for clerical and other 
routine work, or at the instance of personal or political friends. The 
law relied upon for their employment simply authorizes the expenditure 
of a sum not exceeding $100,000 per annum “for the detection and pre¬ 
vention of frauds upon the customs revenue.” 

We think it is clear that if the statute contemplates the employment of 
persons, it is for temporary service only, and where some particular fraud 
is to be detected or prevented, under the direction of customs officers, 
and not the regular and constant employment, clerical and otherwise, 
upon a similar footing with officers especially authorized by law. 

The leading idea of the law undoubtedly is to reward parties for spe¬ 
cific information as to frauds, either contemplated or perpetrated. 

Persons so employed have no official status, and no authority to make 
seizures or perform other official acts devolving upon customs officers. 
We are of the opinion that all permanent employ6s should be officers 
known to the customs laws, and should be paid from appropriations 
specifically made for that purpose. 



26 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

If it is deemed necessary to retain in the service any of the persons 
above named or others of their class, we respectfully recommend that 
they be dropped from the u fraud roll” and made officers. 

We also call attention to the fact that the special-agency force here is 
divided into three independent and more or less rival detachments, viz: 
Special Agent Ayer, with the major part of the force at the custom¬ 
house ; Special Agent Fox, with several subordinates at the district at¬ 
torney’s office; and Mr. O’Beirne at the public stores. 

In our opinion, these should be consolidated under a common chiet. 
If this were done, the aggregate permanent force could be considerably 
reduced, harmonious action secured, and better results achieved. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. 0. TICHENOK, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, Special Agents . 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 13. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. (7., March 6 , 1883. 

Gentlemen : I transmit herewith for investigation and report thereon 
a communication, dated the 2d instant, from Thomas Brown, night- 
inspector of customs at the port of New York, wherein he prefers 
charges against Mr. Wm. Hussey, an employe under the direction of 
Special Agent Geo. H. Fox, at the port of New York. 

Please return the enclosure with your report. 

Very respectfully, 

h. mcculloch, 

Secretary. 

Messrs. Geo. C. Tichenor, A. K. Tingle, and O. L. Spaulding. 


[Enclosure.] 

* New York, March 2, 1885. 

Sir : I liave respectfully to request that an investigation be made by the special 
agents’ commission now sitting in New York in reference to the character, employ¬ 
ment, and present status of Mr. William Hussey, an employ6 of the special agents’ 
office at New York, and acting with and under the direction of Special Agent George 
H. Fox. 

I ask that this investigation be made for the following reasons, and am prepared to 
furnish witnesses of unimpeachable character to prove all that is charged against him 
from the date of his first appointment, and have to submit the following in connection 
therewith: 

1. Wm. Hussey was appointed night-inspector November 4,1869 ; removed April 25, 
1870. 

2. Reappointed June 18, 1870. 

3. Again removed August 2, 1871. 

4. Again appointed October 7 or 12, 1871. 

5. Suspended December 17, 1874. 

6. Again removed February 15, 1875. 

7. Employed in special agents’ office, under Special Agent Brackett. Again re¬ 
moved. Employed in special agents’ office again, under Gen. N. M. Curtis. Again 
removed. Employed in special agents’ office again, under Special Agent Adams, and 
again removed. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 27 


Tlie causes of these frequent removals are not known to me, hut will no doubt he 
found on tile in the Department. 

Just previous to his present appointment in the special agents’ office, the New York 
papers stated that Mr. Hussey had been indicted for keeping a gamhling-liouse at 
Hunter’s Point. 

January 9, 1879, Hussey and Donohue were detailed by Special Agent Curtis, on 
information that a quantity of cigars were to be landed from the steamship “Niagara” 
from Havana, about this date. In accordance with instructions, they secreted them¬ 
selves in the cabin ol a schooner lying next to the steamship to watch the same. 
About seven o’clock in the morning they discovered a row-boat with two men in it 
approaching the steamer, and in a few minutes two bags of cigars were lowered into the 
row-boat, when Inspector Donohue called Hussey’s attention to the same, and he, 
Donohue, went out and demanded the men, under cover of a revolver, to pull back 
with the cigars, which they did, while Morris Stack, a saloon-keeper at No. 18 West 
street, who is and has been known for years to be a smuggler, stood on the pier, ordered 
the men oft and to pay no attention to Donohue. However, Inspector Donohue got 
the cigars, at the risk of being thrown overboard by Morris Stack, w ho had threatened 
to do so. Hussey, who is a friend of Morris Stack, did not leave the cabin or come to 
Donohue’s assistance. 

About the latter part of September, 1880, on the arrival of the steamship “Santiago 
de Cuba,” from Havana, there w r as landed from said steamer while she was lying in 
lower quarantine about 25,000 cigars. This was after daybreak in the morning, and 
they were low r ered into a row-boat occupied by two men. At the stern of the steam¬ 
ship, from where this action on the part of the smugglers could easily be observed, was 
another row-boat, with two Government officials in, viz., George H. Fox and William 
Hussey, and also an oarsman. They saw the cigars lowered into the boat, and the boat 
pull away, and never even attempted to stop or pursue them. 

In the spring of 1880, the steamship “Santiago de Cuba” arrived from Havana with 
a lot of cigars on board to be smuggled ashore. Donohue and Hussey had the ship 
under surveillance. While Donohue was relieved by Hussey, to go to breakfast, Hus¬ 
sey, Stack, and a friend of theirs, by the name of Grady, landed and carried the cigars 
up the dock, and took them into a liquor store on Rector street. 

On New Year’s morning, the steamship “Newport” was on her way up from Havana, 
and in the lower bay. She was moving along rapidly, while Harrington and myself 
were in a row-boat waiting and w r atching the movements of three men in a row-boat 
some distance off. We were concealed behind the dock at Fort Wadsworth. We saw 
a man stand up in the other row-boat and wave his hat three times, so that the smug¬ 
glers on board the ship could not fail to notice it. Immediately after, they threw off 
four bags containing about 5,000 cigars, and opposite Fort Wadsworth three bags 
more were thrown off, containing about 6‘00 bundles cigarettes and about 5,000 cigars, 
making in all seven bags. The three men in the other boat immediately pulled for the 
bags, with all the three men rowing. We also pulled for the bags and got there first, 
and picked up the three bags, then went in pursuit of the others, which we also secured. 
These men were armed with shot-guns or rifles, and boasted afterwards that if they 
could have gotten near us they would have shot us. Special Agent Brackett did not 
know w r e were going down the bay after these cigars, or that we had gone. 

Now, in regard to this, seizure, I have to state that I was informed by Special Agent 
Brackett, the ne^t morning at the office, (he being then in charge,) that on Sunday, 
the day immediately preceding the seizure, a man came to his house, and also on 
Monday, New Year’s day, the day of the seizure, and complained to him that we were 
in complicity with the smugglers, and were afraid to go down the bay after them. I 
have every reason to believe that the man who made this complaint to Captain Brackett 
was Wm. Hussey, and that he made the charge out of enmity to us. Captain Brackett 
refused then and refuses now to furnish us with the name of this man. 

When Mr. Hussey was reappointed to the special agents’ office, under Special Agent 
Brackett, last spring, he (Captain Brackett) stated that Hussey made the remark that 
he was going to “break us up”—meaning Donohue, Harrigan, and myself. This re¬ 
mark was repeated afterwards by him, and has proved true, to the extent that his 
employment in the office has prevented us from making seizures that we otherwise 
could have made had it not been for him, as for instance : Inspector Donohue had in¬ 
formation to the effect that the steamship “City of Merida,” arriving from Havana 
about May or June last, would have a large quantity of cigars on board. Hussey also 
claimed to have information on the same vessel. In consequence of these two state¬ 
ments of Donohue and Hussey to Captain Brackett, it was determined by Captain 
Brackett to send Officers Hussey and Harrison down tlje bay to watch the ship, that 


28 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


nothing could be thrown off, and Donohue, Harrigan, and myself were detailed by him 
to board the vessel when she reached her dock at Pier 3, N. R., to search her. We 
were at the dock when the vessel arrived; Hussey immediately proceeded to go ashore. 
When Donohue spoke to him and told him we would work the place on the ship, that 
he had information against, Hussey refused to assist, on the plea of having been up all 
night, and would not tell us the location of the place where his informant said the 
cigars were concealed, and then went off the dock. Harrison was still on board. While 
Hussey was away, we learned, from an employe on board who was friendly to us, that 
six or eight bags of cigars had been thrown overboard in the lower bay. We had every 
reason to believe this statement to be true, from the fact that Mr. Hussey’s son was 
also an employe on the vessel. Hussey afterwards told Donohue, when questioned by 
him as to the cigars presumed to be on board, that they had been thrown off down the 
bay. but “not to say anything about it.” Consequently, we did not search the ship. 

Without wishing to detail further particulars in this direction at the present time, I 
am fully prepared to submit further evidence upon an investigation ; and when called 
upon by the commission, if this should be referred to them, will submit a list of 
witnesses to prove all the charges made. 

I have respectfully to request an acknowledgment of the receipt of this communica¬ 
tion. 

Very respectfully, 

THOMAS. BROWN, 

Night-Inspector. 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 14. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D. C., March 21, 1885. 

Gentlemen : On the 6th instant the Department transmitted to you, 
for investigation and report thereon, a communication, dated the 2d 
instant, from Mr. Thomas Brown, night-inspector of customs at the port 
of New York, wherein he preferred certain charges against William 
Hussey, now employed as an inspector of customs under the direction 
of Special Agent Geo. H. Fox. I transmit herewith another communi¬ 
cation, dated the 16th instant, and its enclosure, from Mr. Brown, 
further in relation to the subject. You will please give immediate at¬ 
tention to this matter and report the result to the Department. 

Mr. Brown has been informed of the reference of his communication 
to you. Please return the enclosures. 

Yerv respectfully, 

C. S. FAIKCHILD, 

Assistant Secretary . 

Messrs. Geo. 0. Tichenor, A. K. Tingle, O. L. Spaulding, 

Special Agents, New York, N. Y. 


[Enclosure.] 

New York, March 16, 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully state that I forwarded a communication to the Department, under 
date of the 2d instant, making certain charges against Mr. William Hussey, an employ*} 
or inspector in the customs service in this city, who is acting with and under the direc¬ 
tion of Special Agent Geo. H. Fox, and showing Mr. Fox’s intimate and improper con¬ 
nection with him, with request that they be referred for investigation to the special 
agents’ commission now sitting in this city. I have further to submit, for the consid¬ 
eration and action of the Department, the following statements in relation thereto: 

One of the causes which led to the dismissal of Mr. Hussey from the special agents’ 
office, while Apecial Agent Adams was in charge, is as follows: A smuggler by the 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


29 


name of Cantlin had some cigars seized by certain officers of the special agents’ office. 
Mr. Cantlin offered $25 to Mr. Hussey if he would find out “who gave him away ” 
which Hussey promised to do. After Hussey was dismissed, Mr. Fox, who was then 
an inspector in the office of Special Agent Adams, told Captain Adams that he (Fox) 
and not Hussey was the one who offered to furnish Cantlin the name of the informer. 
I understand from Special Agent Adams that he told Mr. Fox it looked as if he wanted 
to cover Hussey up. 

In a recent interview with the Hon. Eliliu Root, United States district attorney in 
this city, to whom I submitted a copy of my former communication to the Department, 
he informed me that he had already called the attention of the special agents’ commis¬ 
sion. while investigating Special Agent Brackett’s office, to the character of Mr. Hussey, 
and this before Mr. Hussey had been transferred from the fraud roll to an inspector of 
customs. 

It appears that Special Agent Fox, with whom Mr. Hussey is .so closely and intimately 
connected, was interested in a tobacco investigation at Detroit in 1879 or 1880, while he 
was an inspector, after which Special Agent Spaulding made a report to the Depart¬ 
ment reflecting severely on Mr. Fox’s action in the case. I am also informed that Mr. 
Jno. D. Bartlett, then an inspector of customs, now superintendent of the Kennebec 
Ice Company at Washington, D. C., was also detailed upon the case. 

If Special Agent Spaulding’s report be referred to, and Mr. Bartlett’s testimony in 
the case be taken, it will, without doubt, show the methods employed by Mr. Fox as 
a Government officer. 

I would respectfully request an acknowledgment of the receipt of this and my former 
communication. 

Yery respectfully, 

THOMAS BROWN, 

Night-Inspector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 15. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York , April 3, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to Department letter of the 6th ultimo, 
covering charges preferred by Inspector Thomas Brown against Inspector 
William Hussey, and to a letter from the Department, dated the 21st 
ultimo, enclosing charges preferred by Inspector Brown against Special 
Agent George H. Fox and Inspector Hussey, instructing us to investi¬ 
gate and report thereon, we have the honor to submit the following: 

Before the receipt of these letters, upon the suggestion of District 
Attorney Root, we had commenced the investigation of complaints made 
to him that Inspectors Brown, Donohue, and Harrigan, attached to the 
special agents’* office, and engaged in examining the Havana steamers 
for smuggled cigars and other articles, habitually neglected their duty, 
if they were not in actual collusion with smugglers ; and that while they 
made an occasional seizure, they made no arrests. It was further made 
a subject of complaint that while the steamship companies were trying 
to suppress smuggling, they were not assisted by the customs officers, 
but were annoyed by the bringing of vexatious suits against the masters 
and their vessels. 

We continued this inquiry in connection with the investigation of 
the charges made by Inspector Brown, as they appeared to be intimately 
connected. Indeed, the latter charges, which point to alleged official 
misconduct of some years ago, seem to have been inspired by Brown’s 
belief that they would serve in the defence of himself and associates 
against complaints for which he thought Fox and Hussey responsible. 



30 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

It is probable that the attention of the Department would never have 
been called to these charges were it not for the fact that Inspector Hus¬ 
sey is on duty with Special Agent Fox at the district attorney’s office, 
while Inspectors Brown, Donohue, and Harrigan report to Special 
Agent Ayer at the custom-house. 

There is not good feeling between the offices of these two special 
agents, and this prevents them from working together in the best in¬ 
terests of the public service. 

We learn from the steamship companies that they find no ground for 
complaint because of legal proceedings during the last year and a half, 
but they desire a discontinuance of what they deem vexatious suits 
brought prior to that time and now pending. Regarding these suits we 
have made no inquiry, as they are within the control of the district at¬ 
torney. 

A list of seizures made by Inspector Brown and associates was handed 
to us, with the statement that they were not accompanied by arrests. 
This charge was evidently made through misapprehension, as the evi¬ 
dence shows a considerable number of arrests and the punishment of the 
guilty parties. This misapprehension may have arisen from reports of 
a number of seizures of articles not on the manifest which were found 
by the officers in searching the ship. In such cases no person could be 
held for smuggling. The records, however, also show that no seizures 
were made by these officers from August 21 to December 24, 1884, a 
period of four months, while it is in evidence that the smuggling of 
cigars was going on during that time. (See testimony of John Collins, 
page 3.) 

The claim of the steamship companies that they make every effort to 
stop smuggling by their employes, but are not supported by the customs 
officers, is met by the statement that certain of their officers, notably 
pursers, are retained in their employ, although engaged in illicit trade. 
It is not clear, however, that knowledge of this has been brought home 
to the responsible officers of the companies. 

We believe Inspectors Brown and Donohue to be efficient officers, who 
have rendered good service to the Government. Officer Harrigan is 
said to have been a smuggler some years ago, when employed upon the 
steamers; but if this were true, and without discussing the policy of his 
employment, we are not convinced that he has failed in his duty during 
his service in the customs. He is skilful in the management of a boat, 
and it is in this capacity, in the lower bay, where cigar-smuggling is 
chiefly carried on, that he has done good work. 

Inspector Hussey has a variegated record of appointment to and dis¬ 
missals from the customs service, running through more than fifteen 
years. His appointments seem to have been political, as were some of 
his removals. In one instance, however, he says he was dismissed for 
bringing ashore for his own use four gallons of gin without payment of 
duty, an act for which he claims abundant warrant in the practice in 
those days of his superior officers. His latest removal was made upon 
the recommendation of Special Agent Adams, who states that he dis¬ 
pensed with Hussey’s services because of his general bad character and 
of a specific charge which was not proved. (See testimony, page 38.) 

Hussey is an energetic officer, with considerable detective ability, 
which he has used on occasion for the benefit of the service. A notable 
instance of this kind is found in his seizure, in January last, aided by 
Inspector Keely, of a quantity of cigars, smuggled from the steamer 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


31 


“Newport” by one Cantlon, a notorious smuggler, who was promptly 
arrested and convicted. It appears from the testimony, (pages 77 and 
86,) that on the same day, and before the cigars left the vessel, she had 
been searched by Officers Brown and Harrigan. 

The charges of official misconduct of Special Agent Fox at this port 
we think are not proved. We are unable to investigate his official acts 
at Detroit some years ago ; and of this there is no need, as all the facts 
relating to the matter mentioned in Mr. Brown’s charges are presumed 
to be of record at the Department. 

In closing the report, we beg to call attention to what we believe to 
be a needed change in certain administrative practices. The ispectors 
above named do not report direct to the collector, who is the chief officer 
of the port, but to different chiefs, neither of whom is an administrative 
officer. In our opinion, the officers upon the duty named should be 
under the general supervision of the collector. It is no part of the duties 
of special agents to maintain administrative departments independent 
of the collector. The latter is responsible for the due enforcement of 
the customs laws at his port, and this responsibility implies that he has 
control of subordinate officers, and that their reports should come to 
him. A skilled and intelligent special agent will find much work at 
hand of more importance than the supervision of a corps of inspectors 
engaged in searching vessels and the detection of petty smuggling. We 
take occasion to renew the suggestion made in a former report, that the 
special agents’ force at this port be consolidated under one competent 
and responsible head. It will then be freed from existing jealousies; 
there will be less working at cross purposes, and the public service will 
be the gainer. We also recommend that Officers Brown, Donohue, Har¬ 
rigan, and Hussey be relieved from duty at the special agents’ offices, 
and ordered to report to the collector for assignment to duty. 

If employes of the steamship companies are found engaged in or abet¬ 
ting smuggling, the latter should be at once advised by the collector of 
the offence, and the name of the offender. If such employe is then re¬ 
tained by the companies, they will have no reason to complain if suits 
are brought against the masters of their vessels. It is presumed, how¬ 
ever that the Government and the officers of the steamship companies, 
thus brought together and inspired with mutual confidence, will be 
found working together to enforce the law. 

We return the charges of Mr. Brown and enclose the testimony taken 
in the case. 

Verv respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SP AULDING, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Special Agents. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


32 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

INVESTIGATIONS AT NEW YORK BY SPECIAL 
AGENTS INTO UNDERVALUATIONS, DAMAGE 
ALLOWANCES, AND DRAWBACK. 

No. 1. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York, February 21, 1885. 

Sir : At the time of and directly following our assignment, under 
Department letter of the 17th ultimo, as a commission to investigate 
matters relating to the special agents’ office here, it was prominently 
announced in the public press of our principal cities that our instructions 
contemplated a wide field of inquiry, affecting the different departments 
of the customs service at this port. 

Such prominence was given to the announcement that our investiga¬ 
tions would relate chiefly to the administrative measures and methods 
here respecting the undervaluation and improper classification of im¬ 
ported merchandise, and to irregularities as to damage allowances, as 
to lead to general discussion of these subjects in the public prints and 
trade circles of the country, and to some extent abroad. In consequence 
of such publications and discussion during the progress of our inves¬ 
tigations, forming the subject of our report of the 19th instant, both 
consular and customs officers, the United States district attorney here, 
as well as importers and other private parties, here and elsewhere, have 
in person, privately and otherwise, sought to bring to our attention and 
action many matters of consequence affecting the administration of the 
customs laws at this port, the conduct of customs officers, &c. 

The investigation of these matters not being authorized by.our instruc¬ 
tions, we have deemed it proper to indicate to you their general char¬ 
acter, for such action as may be deemed proper by the Department, viz : 

United States Attorney Boot has called our attention to matters indi¬ 
cating laxity on the part of certain customs officers in reporting to him 
cases against masters of vessels on which unmanifested cigars and other 
articles have been seized, and where, it is thought, proper steps have 
not been taken to secure the proofs necessary, as well as to secure the 
arrest and punishment of the parties actually guilty of smuggling. 

The district attorney lias also called our attention to information indi¬ 
cating collusion on the part of certain customs officers with smugglers, 
and has suggested that we make the matter the subject of early and 
thorough inquiry. 

It has been reported to us by an officer of the Department that an 
officer from the collector’s office on duty at the Barge office devotes 
much of his attention, on the arrival of passenger-steamers from foreign 
ports to exchanging our currency for foreign money, at large discount, 
with arriving passengers, including immigrants. 

Information giving rise to suspicion of irregularities in connection 
with allowances for drawback on exported bags has come to us from a 
source deemed reliable. 

We enclose herewith a communication, dated the 5th instant, witY 
two enclosures, from the United States consul at Bradford, England, 
containing serious charges against Assistant Appraiser Wickham, and 
conveying information he has communicated from time to time with re¬ 
spect to undervaluations, and suggesting inquiry as to the action which 
has been taken upon the same. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


33 


Private letters from other consular officers have come to us with 
similar suggestions as to the treatment of information they have com¬ 
municated either to the collector, appraiser, or special agents. 

It has been represented to us that serious irregularities have prevailed 
in allowances for damage to imported merchandise. 

Importers of certain classes of merchandise have complained to us 
that competing houses have been allowed to pass their importations at 
gross undervaluation, notwithstanding they have furnished the proper 
officers irrefragable proof to that effect. 

It lias been stated to us that the same identical class of goods has been 
classified widely different for dutiable purposes when coming to different 
importers. 

We are of the opinion that our inability to take up and investigate 
certain of these and other matters brought to our notice has inspired 
some, at least, of the many unfriendly criticisms of the Department and 
of ourselves, with respect to our assignment, which have recently ap¬ 
peared in the public press of this city. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, Special Agents. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 2. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. C., February 24, 1885. 

Gentlemen : You are instructed to continue the investigation of 
irregularities in the customs service at the port of New York, and will 
report to the Department as soon as practicable the result of your in¬ 
quiries in regard to undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances, 
drawbacks, and such other irregular practices at said port as may come 
to your notice. You will submit separate reports as soon as convenient 
upon each subject examined. 

Special Agent A. K. Tingle has been instructed to co-operate with 
you in this investigation. 

Very respectfully, 

H. McCULLOCH, 

Geo. C. Tichenor, O. L. Spaulding, Secretary. 

Special Agents , New York , A. Y. 


No. 3. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. <7., February 24, 1885. 

Sir : You are hereby instructed to join Special Agents Tichenor and 
Spaulding in the investigation of undervaluations, damage allowances, 
drawbacks, and other irregularities at the port of New York, in accord¬ 
ance with instructions to those officers contained in Department letter 
of this date. 

Very repectfully, 

H. McCULLOCH, 

Mr. A. K. Tingle, Secretary. 

Special Agent , Treasury Department. 

3 A 




34 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 4. 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collector’s Office , March 21, 1885. 

Sir : We have the honor to transmit herewith a communication ad¬ 
dressed to us, under date of the 9th instant, by Messrs. Wm. Pickhardt 
& Kuttraff, importers of this city, complaining of the action of the 
appraiser’s department at this port with respect to the rate of duty 
assessed upon their importations of so-called “ alizarine assistant” or 
“oleate of soda,” as well as of delay in passing recent importations of 
such merchandise. 

Deeming the matter within the scope of our instructions of the 24th 
ultimo, we, upon receipt of the above communication, called Appraiser 
Ivetchum’s attention thereto, and were informed by him that upon con¬ 
ference with Assistant Appraiser Gregg, previous to our visit, he had 
taken the matter into his own hands for action, and would at once pass 
the merchandise in accordance with the Department’s recent decision 
upon the subject. 

We at the same time conferred with Assistant Appraiser Gregg, who 
was quite decided in his opinion that the article in question was not en¬ 
titled to classification as a chemical compound under the provisions of 
the existing tariff, but was liable to duty as castor-oil, under section 2499, 
Revised Statutes. He described the article as a u chemical mixture, ’ ’ 
composed of sulpho-recinoleate of soda and castor-oil, and held that 
when these constituents were combined positive conversion did not oc¬ 
cur, the castor-oil being simply dissolved and remaining in such con¬ 
dition as that it could be reclaimed by the simple process of boiling with 
a weak acid, although he did not contend that when so reclaimed it 
would have all the characteristic traits of the castor-oil of commerce. 

Dr. H. M. Baker, chemist in the laboratory attached to the appraisers’ 
department, informed us that he had made numerous analyses of the 
articles, and had given the same careful study within the year past and 
recently, that he was clearly of the opinion that it was a chemical com¬ 
pound, and that it would be utterly impossible, by any known process, 
to recover the castor-oil used in its preparation in condition to be avail¬ 
able for use as castor-oil of commerce. 

Very respectfully, GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Special Agents. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 5. 

New York, March 23, 1885. 

Sir : Among other irregular practices claiming our attention at this 
port, the system of payment of drawbacks upon exported bags has been 
carefully examined, and we now have the honor to submit the following 
report thereon: 

Section 3019 of the Revised Statutes provides that “there shall be 
allowed on all articles wholly manufactured of materials imported on 
which duties have been paid, when exported, a drawback equal in 
amount to the duty paid on such materials, and no more, to be ascer¬ 
tained undfcr such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of 
the Treasury. Ten per cent, on the amount of all drawbacks so allowed 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 35 


shall, however, be retained for the use of the United States by the col¬ 
lectors paying such drawbacks respectively.” 

The general regulations of 1884 (article 967) require that the entry in 
such cases, describing the goods by marks, numbers, description, quail ^ 
tity, and value, shall be filed with the collector at least six hours before 
lading any of the merchandise on board the exporting vessel. Article 
968 provides that the proceedings after entry is filed shall be the same 
as in cases of withdrawal from warehouse for exportation. These pro¬ 
ceedings are set forth in article 750 of the Regulations, which prescribes 
the form of permit for inspection of the goods and the lading on board 
the exporting vessel, as well as the form of the return of the inspector 
whose duty it is to examine the goods and certify to their identity with 
the description set forth in the entry, and to the fact that they were 
actually laden under his supervision on board the exporting vessel. 
This certificate implies that the statements it contains as to the char¬ 
acter, quality, and quantity of the goods, as well as the lading, were all 
within the personal knowledge of the inspector. 

When dutiable goods are imported they are not allowed to pass from 
the custody of the Government until the duties are paid. When ex¬ 
ported in the original packages, for benefit of drawback, they are subject 
to certain restrictive regulations, and the law especially provides (sec¬ 
tion 3025) that no return of duty shall be allowed on the export of any 
merchandise after it has been removed from the custody and control of 
the Government, except in certain cases, one of which is provided for 
in section 3019, under which drawback on bags made of imported burlaps 
has been claimed and allowed. 

When it is found that the regulations applicable to the importation 
of merchandise, and the collection of duties thereon, and the exporta¬ 
tion of merchandise from warehouse are necessary, and none too restrict¬ 
ive for the protection of the Government, it would seem that the ex¬ 
portation of manufactured goods upon which money is paid from the 
Treasury by way of drawback should be made under regulations not 
less guarded and restrictive. 

The Department has, upon application of interested parties, modified 
the drawback regulations in certain particulars applicable to the exporta¬ 
tion of bags. 

A large proportion of these drawbacks are claimed and allowed upon 
bags containing flour exported from western States upon through bills 
of lading to Europe. The shipments arrive at New York and other 
Atlantic ports at irregular and unstated intervals, and it was found that 
it was often impossible to determine six hours in advance of lading 
upon what vessel they were to be exported or in what quantity. The 
amount of drawback upon a single shipment was so insignificant that 
the owners of the flour were not usually disposed to incur the trouble 
and expense involved in making a drawback under regulations. 

The difficulties in the way of a strict compliance with the regulations 
led to their modification and to the establishment of the following 
practice: 

Custom-house brokers, who had neither ownership of the flour nor 
the bags, were allowed to make entry as exporters of the bags upon the 
presentation at the custom-house of duplicate bills of lading unindorsed 
and marked across the face “for custom-house purposes only,” such 
bills of lading being the through bills to European ports. Thus, it 
would occur that, while the manifest of the exporting vessel showed 
that a certain number of bags of flour had been shipped by certain par- 


36 


REPORT OE the secretary of the treasury. 


ties, there would be nothing on the manifest to indicate that the bags 
on which the drawback was claimed had been exported by the party 
claiming and receiving the drawback. The broker was allowed to take 
the exporter’s oath, when, in point of fact, the article was exported by 
another person, as shown by the custom-house records. The entry in 
these cases was made for a larger number of bags than it was expected 
Would be shipped. The form of entry used by the brokers usually had 
•printed in it “five thousand bags—7,500 yards of burlaps.” Upon 
filing the entry, which was often done some days prior to the arrival 
of the flour from the West, an order to inspect and superintend the 
lading was issued and delivered to the inspector. Upon the arrival 
and shipment of the merchandise, return was made to the drawback 
bureau of the number of bags shipped, which was then inserted in the 
entry in lieu of the number originally entered. When it occurred, as 
it frequently did, that the goods were not shipped by the vessel or to 
the port originally named, the entry in this particular was chan^ d, by 
consent of the drawback entry clerk, who put his check upon the altered 
paper bearing the signature of the deputy collector, who, however, was 
not cognizant of such change. The affidavit of the exporter was also 
changed by inserting the name of a different vessel or port from that 
set forth in the original oath, and no new oath was administered, thus 
destroying its validity, and resulting in the exportation of merchandise 
and payment of drawback without an exporter’s oath. This practice 
is one of long standing, and continued at the time of our investigation. 
An examination of seventeen drawback entries of flour-bags made on 
one day showed that eight of the affidavits had been thus changed. A 
like practice was found to a limited extent in the exportation of sugar 
and tin cans, it appearing that the brokers and the officers immediately 
in charge of drawback entries regarded these changes in completed 
papers as immaterial. 

Other modifications of the regulations affecting the exportation of 
bags for drawback permit the shipment of the merchandise upon inspec¬ 
tion orders in advance of entry, and the combining by a broker of a 
number of claims of several parties in one entry within thirty days after 
the sailing of the exporting vessel or vessels. 

Another modification dispenses with the requirement that the manu¬ 
facturer’s affidavit covering proof of manufacture of the merchandise 
from duty-paid materials shall accompany each entry, and allows the 
filing of such affidavit in the custom-house, or the certificate of a col¬ 
lector of another port that such affidavit is on file in his office, the ship¬ 
ments being checked off against the importations covered by these 
affidavits or certificates as they occur. 

The surveyor’s department is charged with the work of supervising 
the inspection and shipment of all merchandise exported for drawback, 
and there is a separate division in his office, called the “ debenture bu¬ 
reau,” through which all export orders pass. The drawback orders are 
entered upon a register, and are issued to the several inspectors assigned 
to debenture duty in turn as the orders come in. It appears, however, 
that the four inspectors hitherto employed on this work have divided 
between themselves the several classes of drawback entries, and that 
for the last eighteen months, under this arrangement, Inspector W. S. 
Copland lias practically made all the returns of the examination and 
lading of exported bags. 

A full inquiry into the methods of this officer disclosed the fact that 
he has not, as a rule, actually examined the merchandise or supervised 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 3? 

the lading thereof, but that he has been in the habit of obtaining the 
information from which his returns were made up from clerks of the 
transportation companies after the shipment of the goods. 

The materials from which these bags are made vary in quality and 
price, and no proper examination is made to determine the number or 
quality of the exported articles, or whether they are of domestic or for¬ 
eign manufacture ; nor are the bags so marked that they may be identi¬ 
fied in case of reimportation. Although the form of entry prescribed 
by the regulations indicates that marks, numbers, and descriptions 
must be therein set forth, the entry and inspection order contain no in¬ 
formation of this character, except the number of bags proposed to be 
shipped, and this is always suppositious. 

One instance came to our notice of an entry for drawback at the port 
of Baltimore of cotton bags containing flour, entered for drawback as 
bags made of foreign burlaps. The fact that the material was cotton 
could only have been discovered by actual inspection, which we find is 
not usually made at this port. It appeared in another case that entry 
was made and drawback collected some weeks after the exportation of 
the goods. In another case the entry was made and the inspection order 
issued on June 17,1884, some days before the goods were actually shipped 
from the West. From an examination of the return of the inspector, it 
appears that it was first made on June 19, before the goods left Chicago 
and St. Louis, and afterwards changed to July 19. These instances are 
cited to illustrate the danger of dispensing with any of the safeguards 
provided by the general regulations, and the necessity for absolute 
fidelity on the part of the officers intrusted with the duty of inspection 
and shipment. 

Burlaps made of jute are imported in large quantities, and are used 
for wrappings of all kinds. We are informed that but a small propor¬ 
tion of the whole quantity imported are used for flour-bags. Large 
numbers of bags which have been exported are reimported free as of 
American origin, or as having been originally imported duty-paid. 
Some bags so reimported are known to have contained flour on expor¬ 
tation. These bags go into consumption in this country, and many of 
them are in a condition to be, and we are told are, again used for the 
exportation of flour. 

It appears from the records of the custom-house that no duties are 
ever paid on returned bags. A few instances have occurred where 
duties were exacted, but a refund was subsequently ordered by the 
Department. 

There are a number of jute-mills in this country engaged in the manu¬ 
facture Of burlaps, much of which is made into bags. Being of the same 
material, they cannot be distinguished from bags made of imported 
burlaps. 

The form of drawback entry prescribed by the regulations contains 
an affidavit of the proprietor and foreman of a bag factory, showing that 
the materials entering into the manufacture of the bags described in the 
entry were imported and made into bags at such factory, giving also 
full particulars as to marks, numbers, description of material, by whom 
imported, name of vessel, date and port of importation, whence im¬ 
ported, and quantity. The oath of the exporter corroborates this affi¬ 
davit and states that duties were paid on such material, and that no 
part of such duties' have been refunded. When the entry is presented 
at the custom-house, the import entry referred to in the affidavit is 


38 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


examined and the fact ascertained that such importation was made.' 
This chain of evidence, the affidavits being accepted as true, is sufficient 
prima facie proof in cases where articles manufactured from foreign 
materials are exported direct from the factory, and the affiants have the 
means of knowing that the goods are the identical articles manufactured 
under their direction; but in the case of bags which have been sold to 
third parties, have been transported thousands of miles and filled with 
flour, having thus virtually gone into consumption in this country, it is 
impossible that the manufacturers can know that they are the same bags 
sold by them months before. If they made actual inspection of the bags 
exported, which they do not, the persons who make these affidavits 
could not know that the bags were made at their factory unless there 
was some distinguishing mark upon them, which is not always the case, 
as some of the flour manufacturers will not buy bags with such marks. 
It is obvious, therefore, that as the proprietor and foreman do not see 
the bags after they leave their factory, they cannot know that the bags 
entered for export were manufactured by them from imported burlaps, 
or that they were not made from domestic burlaps. It will be readily 
seen that the officers of the drawback bureau, who did not regard an 
alteration in an affidavit after it had been signed and sworn to as 
material, would not be apt to inquire as to the means of knowledge pos¬ 
sessed by the persons making such manufacturers’ affidavits. 

By the modified regulations, the proof of manufacture from foreign 
materials, and the identification of these materials with the exported 
articles, may be filed at the custom-house prior to the entry. In these 
cases—and this is now the usual practice—the affidavit covers an impor¬ 
tation of foreign burlaps and identifies them with bags sold to parties 
named, usually the miller shipping the flour. The miller who knows 
whether the bags used for the shipment are those bought from this 
particular manufacturer, and who is the owner and exporter, is the 
only person really entitled to make entry for drawback, is not required 
to complete the chain of evidence by his oath, or other competent testi¬ 
mony. The affidavit of the manufacturer is regarded as sufficient, and 
the drawback clerk checks off the shipments as they come in, until the 
number of bags embraced therein is exhausted. 

If it were a fact that all export bags are made from foreign burlaps, 
it might be urged that the identity of the bags shipped with any given 
importation of burlaps was not necessary for the protection of the Gov¬ 
ernment, but when it is considered that large numbers of export bags 
are made from domestic burlaps, it is evident that the present practice 
invites fraud. 

Imported jute bags pay a duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem. One of 
the largest European manufacturers of this article, we are informed, is 
the firm of Morrison, Anderson & But chart, of Dundee, Scotland. They 
bring the jute from India to Dundee and there manufacture burlaps and 
bags. Since the present modified regulations have been in force this 
firm has transferred to this country the finishing process in making bags 
for sale in the United States. They import the burlaps manufactured 
by them in Scotland, paying a duty of 30 per cent, thereon, have them 
made up into bags at a trifling additional cost, and sell the bags to 
the millers for consumption as well as export. Upon those exported 
they obtain a drawback of the duties paid, less 10 per cent., so that the 
duty paid on the bags thus sold for export is only 3 per cent, ad valorem. 
They are thus placed in a position of great advantage so far as the con- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


39 


trol of the sale of bags in the United States is concerned. While they 
have clearly this right under the law as it has been heretofore construed, 
it is the duty of the officers of the Government, charged with the pro¬ 
tection of its interests, to see to it that the regulations under which 
these drawbacks are paid are not so loosely drawn and administered as 
to imperil those interests as well as to defeat the object of the drawback 
law. It is worthy of consideration whether the bags have not already 
gone into consumption when filled with flour which may be sold at home 
as well as abroad. They are a mere envelope of the principal article, 
are not then merchandise but an incident employed as a convenient 
means of transportation. The wear and tear of bags begin the moment 
the flour is put into them, and if exported they have already been in 
use in the United States for weeks and perhaps months before shipment 
abroad. In this view of the case, it may be doubted whether they come 
within the intent of the drawback law in the absence of specific mention. 
Is not the law properly construed by limiting its application to articles 
shipped abroad to be sold as merchandise in the condition in which they 
are manufactured? 

In regard to the practical administration of the drawback regulations 
at this port, it should be stated that besides the acceptance by the draw¬ 
back bureau of entries and affidavits altered by erasure as hereinbefore 
mentioned, the inspector has been in the habit of delivering to brokers 
making entries his orders for inspection and lading. His return is 
filled ui> by the broker, with the particulars as to the number and size 
of bags shipped, from information obtained from the transportation 
companies, either direct or through the inspector, so that the entire 
transaction, so far as it governs the amount of drawback paid, is carried 
through by the brokers receiving such drawback. 

The officers in the several departments of the custom-house re¬ 
sponsible for the long continuance of the irregularities shown in this 
report cannot be held blameless. Some of them appear to be more 
zealous in the interests of the brokers obtaining these drawbacks than 
to protect the Government from illegal payments. 

We have called the attention of the collector, naval officer, and sur¬ 
veyor, to these irregularities and to the conduct of the officers respon¬ 
sible therefor in the several departments. 

The oral testimony taken in this matter relates also in some degree 
to drawbacks on articles other than bags, notably sugar. We expect 
further evidence as to drawbacks on sugar, as well as other merchan¬ 
dise, and will submit all the testimony taken with a general report on 
drawbacks as soon as practicable; unless it is desired by the Depart¬ 
ment that the testimony taken as to bags shall be forwarded at once. 
We regard the irregularities developed in this branch of the subject of 
so flagrant a character as to demand an immediate report. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHNOE, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


40 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 6. 


New York, April 10, 1885. 

Sir : Continuing the investigation of the methods of conducting the 
customs business at this port, we have given careful consideration to 
•the subject of undervaluation. While there is no doubt that the in¬ 
voices of all classes of merchandise consigned to the United States for 
sale on foreign account are as a rule undervalued, this is notably true as 
to silk goods. During the past ten years since the repeal of former 
restrictive and penal provisions of the revenue laws, a system of success¬ 
ful evasion of duties on silks has been gradually built up and established. 
This system of evasion has been a subject of frequent investigation and 
report at home and abroad. It is a matter of common notoriety in 
official and mercantile circles. No one familiar with the silk trade here 
or in Europe will contend for a moment that consigned silks are honestly 
imported into this country. 

Many efforts have been made to secure the proper and uniform ap¬ 
praisement of silks, but with only partial and temporary success. With 
the exception of occasional purchases of novelties in the European 
markets, all imported goods of this character come consigned to com¬ 
mission merchants, either for sale on foreign account or for delivery to 
a purchaser who has bought them abroad at what is known as a “dollar 
price”—that is, a price in United States currency—the goods to be deliv¬ 
ered here, duties', freight, and charges paid, as distinguished from a 
price in the currency of the country where the goods are purchased. 
Manufacturers who ship their products regularly to this country, while 
they refuse to name what is known as a “franc” price to American 
buyers, will readily take orders for delivery here in the manner stated. 
American importing firms of the highest standing and credit cannot 
buy silks for cash in the foreign markets and import them on their own 
account. 

An essential feature of the consignment system is the concealment of 
the actual foreign market value, so that customs officers may have no 
standard by which to make appraisements. The greatest care is exer¬ 
cised in Lyons, Zurich, and other principal silk markets to prevent the 
prices at which sales are made to European buyers from becoming known 
to any one who might possibly disclose them to persons connected with 
the American customs. So universal is this practice of concealment 
that there is no longer any such thing known to American buyers or 
customs officers as the actual market value or wholesale price "of silk 
goods in the principal markets of the countries of production; and 
this, to a great extent, is true also of kid gloves, laces, embroideries, 
and other articles, which are almost exclusively imported by consign¬ 
ment instead of purchase. 

The only foreign values known are those nominal values expressed in 
the invoices which are made up and used for customs purposes only. 
These values seldom cover the cost of the materials and labor used in 
producing the goods. The knowledge of invoice values is confined to 
shippers, their American agents, and the Government officials through 
whose hands the papers pass. The great body of American houses deal¬ 
ing in these goods and on whom the appraising officers would naturally 
depend for correct information of actual values, know nothing of the 
subject beyond the selling prices in our markets, and these they are re¬ 
luctant to disclose. The home market value, when it can be ascertained, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


41 


luivS therefore become an element, for consideration in appraisements, 
instead of the foreign market value which is the legal basis for the assess¬ 
ment ol duties. Even the home value is concealed from the appraising 
officers as far as practicable. 

In a recent case, where an invoice of silk goods had been ordered by 
a New York merchant for delivery here at a dollar price, the commis¬ 
sion merchant who was the medium through whom the delivery was to 
be made, and who entered the goods at a manifest* undervaluation, re¬ 
fused to disclose the “ dollar price,” although so required by the 
appraiser, under the provisions of section 2922 of the Revised Statutes. 

The extent to which specific invoices are undervalued depends upon 
the audacity of the shipper and the degree of confidence he has in the 
ability of his Yew York agent to pass the goods through the appraisers 
office without incurring penal duties. The only risk to be apprehended 
under the law as it has been administered for years past is the advance 
of value upon appraisement. 

Foreign shippers and their Hew York agents do not appear to regard 
this method of evading duties as in any degree unlawful. We enclose 
a list (marked A) of invoices advanced beyond 10 per cent, for the 
months of December, 1884, January, and a part of February, 1885. 
Hone of these cases have been referred to the district attorney for such 
action as he might deem proper. It is the practice of the collector’s 
office, in case of advances to a penalty, to waive a seizure and accept 
additional duty. The importer has thus come to understand that in 
undervaluing his merchandise he runs neither the risk of criminal pros¬ 
ecution nor of losing his goods. His object appears to be to enter his 
merchandise as low as possible and escape a 10 per cent, advance. But 
if such advance is made, he is sure of no punishment beyond the 20 
per cent, additional duty. 

Attention is called to the frequent recurrence of undervaluations by 
the same importers; the advances range from 12 per cent, to more than 
100 per cent. We also invite attention to Schedule B, showing ad¬ 
vances of less than 10 per cent, during the months of October and Ho- 
vember, 1884, and to the frequent repetition of the names of the same 
importers on this list. A remarkable feature of these advances is that 
so many of them are just a shade under 10 per cent.: For example, in 
eighteen invoices of one firm the advances ranged from 9.02 to 9.99 per 
cent., showing that the appraising officers, in passing the goods, appa¬ 
rently made careful computations with special reference to the penalty 
line, and this, too, on goods about which the best experts rarely agree 
within 5 per cent, of the value. During the three months ending De¬ 
cember 31,1884, more than twenty-two hundred invoices were advanced 
on appraisements, two-thirds of which were invoices of forty of the 
leading houses receiving consigned goods, chiefly silks, for sale on for¬ 
eign account. 

The act of June 22, 1874, provides “that it shall be the duty of any 
officer or person employed in the customs-revenue service of the United 
States, upon detection of any violation of the customs laws, forthwith 
to make complaint thereof to the collector of the district, whose duty 
it shall be promptly to report the same to the district attorney of the 
district in which such frauds shall be committed.” 

It is not claimed that the advance of an occasional invoice indicates 
fraudulent intent of the importer, but when he persistently and uni¬ 
formly enters his goods at an undervaluation, it is evident that he is 


42 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


not deterred from an unlawful practice by the possible addition of penal 
duty. In such cases the law should be invoked, and the habitual under¬ 
valuer made to know that the practice endangers, not only his property, 
but his personal liberty and his reputation. Such action, if taken, 
would, it is believed, be more effectual than any other means which 
could be adopted to break up the practice. The courts are open and 
the law is plain. If, for any reason, it fails in its practical administra¬ 
tion, that is not for the customs officer to consider. That these cases 
have not been reported is probably due to the belief of the customs 
officers that, owing to the provisions of section 16 of the act referred to, 
successful prosecutions could not be maintained. But, in our opinion, 
the collector should follow the plain letter of the law in making his 
report, leaving the consequences to the district attorney and the courts. 

Whenever, as at the present time, undervaluations have become so 
flagrant as to call for special inquiry by the Department, the agents of 
foreign shippers, while defending with vigor the integrity of particular 
invoices in which they have an interest, frankly admit the general 
practice of undervaluing and deplore its demoralizing and injurious 
effect upon trade. They profess a desire for the adoption of some meas¬ 
ure for the suppression of the evil—the means generally suggested being 
specific instead of ad valorem duties—so that all foreign manufacturers 
sending goods here for sale may be placed on equal footing. Under the 
present system,- they say, the manufacturers are always cutting each 
other’s throats. No matter how low one may invoice his goods, and thus 
be enabled to lower his selling price to the extent of the duties saved, 
another can undersell him by simply invoicing his goods a few centimes 
lower. The 50 per cent, duty imposed by law on silk goods affords the 
European shipper a convenient sliding scale, by which he may measure 
his prices up or down, according to the conditions of trade and the com¬ 
petitive undervaluation of his neighbors. 

As a measure towards the correction of values, the consuls at Lyons, 
Zurich, and Horgen have been authorized to employ experts to examine 
and report the cost of labor and materials used in producing the goods 
shipped from their districts. These reports are made regularly; those 
from Horgen and Zurich include all the invoices certified by the con¬ 
suls. Only a small proportion of the invoices sent from Lyons are re¬ 
ported upon in detail as to cost of production; but when this is not done, 
the consul reports the market value. An examination of these reports 
shows clearly that invoice prices are fixed arbitrarily by the shippers, 
without reference to market value or cost of production. The difference 
between invoice prices and the cost of labor and materials varies largely, 
reaching in some cases 50 per cent., while in others it may be as low as 
1 per cent. There is no approach to uniformity of value of goods of 
the same quality from different manufacturers. As one Swiss manufact¬ 
urer expressed it, “the invoicing is largely a matter of conscience.” 
No sales being made, the shipper invoices his goods at whatever price 
he pleases. 

Honest merchants, excluded from the foreign markets by the opera¬ 
tions of this system, are emphatic in denouncing such methods, but they 
are powerless to remedy the evil. Not only are they prevented from 
importing, but they are forbidden, by an unwritten but inexorable law, 
laid down by the agents of foreign shippers, to disclose to Government 
officers the prices paid for goods, or other information which might aid 
in determining the actual values of merchandise. If a merchant, know- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


43 


ing the iniquities of the system, gives information whereby an invoice 
is advanced, and the source of such information becomes known, he is 
boycotted by the firm involved, and loses caste with all the commission 
houses in the same line of business. He is made to feel that, so far as 
such houses are concerned, he is not entitled to ordinary business cour¬ 
tesies. The merchant who thought to preform a duty as a good citizen, 
by exposing the methods by which the Treasury is robbed by foreign¬ 
ers, and honest merchants crowded out of business, finds himself em¬ 
barrassed and annoyed in his business, and suffers pecuniary loss. One 
such lesson is sufficient to prevent a repetition of this business indis¬ 
cretion, and thus an important avenue of information is closed to the 
officers of the Government. So it is when a merchant, acting as mer¬ 
chant appraiser, in good faith advances an invoice, or when as a witness 
on reappraisement he gives testimony as to values resulting in the 
imposition of penal duties. He is reproached by the importer with 
having done him an injury, and his business relations with all the 
undervaluing houses are disturbed. It will be seen from the foregoing 
that the task of the officers charged with the duty of appraising these 
goods is not an easy one. It is certain that under the system, or want 
of system, which has long prevailed in the appraiser’s department, 
full values of consigned goods have not obtained. The enclosed ab¬ 
stracts of the consuls’ reports (Enclosures C to K, inclusive) upon silks 
shipped from Lyons, Horgen, and Zurich, and the appraised values of 
the same, in the month of October, November, and December, 1884, 
present, in our judgment, a fair indication of the average undervaluation 
of silks. It appears from the reports that the— 

Francs. 

Total invoice value of silks shipped from the consular districts of Hogen 


and Zurich during the said period was. 4, 484, 051. 35 

The importers’ additions on entry were. 190, 825. 47 

The appraisers’ additions to make market value amounted to. 198, 369. 01 


♦ 

The cost of labor and materials was. 5, 022, 369. 00 

To this should he added 10 per cent, to cover waste insurance, interest, 
and incidental expenses to reach actual cost of production, namely.. 502, 236. 90 


Making the total cost of production.. 5, 524, 605. 90 

The difference between the cost of production and invoice value is 

(equal to about 23 per cent.). 1, 040, 554. 55 


The additions by the importer and appraiser to make market value 
are about 81 per cent., leaving 141 per cent, of this difference upon 
which no duty was paid. 

Applying these percentages to the entire importations of silk at this 
port for the year 1884, the following appears to be a fair statement of 
the case : 

The entered value, including additions by importers, as shown by 


statistical reports, was. '$30, 494, 797 00 

The cost of production would be. $35, 979, 473 00 

Invoice value... 29,251,604 00 

Difference. 6, 727, 869 00 

Additions by importer and appraiser. 2, 486, 388 00 

Excess of cost of production over amount on which duty was paid. 4, 241, 481 00 




















44 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


If we add no more than 5 per cent, to the cost of production for the 

manufacturer’s profit, we will have. $1, 798, 969 00 


Making an undervaluation of.. 6, 040, 450 00 

And a loss in duties of... 3, 020, 225 00 


Since the passage of the tariff act of 1883, the appraising officers 
have had ample power to measurably arrest undervaluations by ap¬ 
praising the goods at not less than cost of production, as provided by 
section 9 of said act, but they do not appear, except in rare instances, 
to have exercised this power. The consular reports have come regu¬ 
larly to the appraiser during the last eighteen months. They have 
furnished a fair basis for the proper ascertainment of the cost of pro¬ 
duction, but they have not been given full credit by the examiners. 
While errors have been discovered in some of the reports from Lyons, 
the correctness of those from Zurich and Horgen lias been successfully 
disputed. Well-informed domestic manufacturers, to whom the calcula¬ 
tions of these experts have been submitted, have pronounced them too 
low; they are known to be made upon a conservative basis, the benefit 
of every doubt being given to the shipper. There would seem to be no 
valid reason, therefore, for the failure of the appraising officers to avail 
themselves fully of the information thus furnished; but they appear to 
have given greater weight to the representations of interested parties, 
and to have appraised goods at less than the cost of production. 

One of the chief difficulties in the suppression of undervaluations is 
found in the method of reappraisement prevailing at this port. The 
list of five names sent by the appraiser to the collector, from which se¬ 
lection is made of a merchant appraiser, is composed in part, sometimes 
wholly, of firms engaged in the consignment business whose invoices 
are habitually undervalued. It is true that the names of domestic man¬ 
ufacturers and importers who do not receive consigned goods are also 
included in these lists, but the majority of the names are those of houses 
above described. The deputy collector who, previous to January last, 
made the appointments of merchant appraisers, states that he regarded 
it as unfair to select a domestic manufacturer to appraise imported 
goods; besides, he had received formal protests from the importers 
against such appointments, and these he regarded as sufficient reason 
for ruling out domestic manufacturers. He appears, however, to have 
considered it no impropriety to appoint the agents of foreign manufact¬ 
urers whose invoices of like goods were constantly undervalued and 
subjects of reappraisements. 

When it is understood that the general appraiser possesses little or no 
expert knowledge of the quality or value of merchandise, that the mer¬ 
chant appraisers usually appointed are agents of foreign manufacturers, 
and the witnesses called are usually in the same business, and therefore 
interested in maintaining the consignment system, it is not surprising 
that so little progress has been made towards reaching true values upon 
reappraisements. Proper results in these cases largely depend upon 
the prompt, vigorous, and intelligent action of the general appraiser. 
All advances upon invoices of 10 per cent, or more are, as a rule, ap¬ 
pealed from. The examiners making the advances are usually better 
informed than any one else as to the actual value of the merchandise. 
The merchant appraiser, appointed to act with the general appraiser 






45 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

under the provisions of section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, must be a 
merchant in business on his own account. Gentlemen who are partners 
in large firms are usually selected. Many of these have little or no ex¬ 
pert knowledge of the merchandise to be appraised, they depend for in¬ 
formation upon the testimony adduced. The goods advanced by the 
appraiser are almost always consigned, not purchased. The merchants 
receiving them do not profess to have definite knowledge of the foreign 
market values. Their ideas of. such values are based upon the invoice 
prices and the value in the New York market. These houses do not 
buy the goods abroad, and do not own them ; they simply sell them on 
foreign account for what they will bring. The employes of these firms 
called to testify to market values do not hesitate to fix prices at or near 
the invoice prices, and these prices are generally furnished to them be¬ 
forehand by the importer whose invoice is under reappraisement. 
When questioned, they are generally found to possess no actual knowl¬ 
edge of foreign market value. The same witnesses appear almost daily 
and give similar testimony. There are, in many cases, reports from the 
consuls showing the cost of production, and in some instances this has 
tieen supplemented by the testimony of domestic manufacturers and 
experts. This testimony has in repeated instances been submitted to 
the reappraising board, and has been disregarded, while the testimony 
of employes of houses receiving consigned goods, presumably always 
undervalued, has been accepted and the goods appraised at less than 
cost of production, notwithstanding the provisions of the law. This, 
however, does not always occur. When the merchant appraiser happens 
to be a person not himself engaged in the consignment business, or one 
who is not tied up by intimate business relations with firms of that 
character, due credit is given to the testimony adduced on behalf of 
the Government, and examiners advances are sustained. In either case, 
the general appraiser and his associate rarely differ. 

The practical result of reappraisements as they have been generally 
conducted is that the consignee and his business friends, each of whom 
expects return favors from his associates, virtually fix the market value. 
The idea seems to have been lost sight of that a reappraisement is to be 
conducted in practically the same way as an original appraisement, and 
that reappraising officers are not to rest their decisions upon testimony 
obtained after the manner of law courts, regardless of their own expert 
knowledge or facts procured 4 ‘ by all reasonable ways and means in their 
power. ’’ 

We are informed that it is not unusual for the merchant appraiser to 
be known to the appealing party before taking the required oath and 
entering upon duty, and that he and witnesses are visited before the 
hearing by interested parties and furnished with the invoice prices. 
Rumors have reached us that the person selected as a merchant appraiser 
has been known to declare at these preliminary meetings the decision he 
intended to give in the case. Whatever truth there may be in these 
rumors, the fact that they obtain currency is a striking commentary on 
existing practices. 

When there are several cases set for appraisement the same day, it is the 
practice to have them all in progress at the same time. The importer and 
his witnesses gather about the merchant appraiser, who, when he reaches 
a conclusion, consults with the general appraiser, and the decision is 



46 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


made known in the presence of the importer and witnesses. If this is 
not satisfactory to the importer, he is allowed to protest and reargue the 
case, with a view to the modification of the finding, in which he is often 
successful. This condition of affairs suggests the wisdom and necessity 
of a return to the old and legal methods of reappraisement outlined in 
a circular letter of Secretary Robert J. Walker, of December 26, 1848, 
a copy of which is enclosed, marked L. 

Examiners who endeavor to do their duty faithfully by advancing in¬ 
voices become discouraged after repeated failures of the appraisers to 
sustain their action. In recent cases, when values have been determined 
upon reappraisement in the manner stated, the examiners have been 
directed by the appraiser to pass subsequent invoices in accordance with 
the values so found. They are thus compelled to subordinate their own 
judgment to the findings of a reappraising board on previous invoices, 
reappraised in some cases months, and even years, before. 

There is always a reluctance on the part of appraising officers to ad¬ 
vance values to "the 10 per cent, limit, or, as it is expressed in the com¬ 
mon parlance of the appraiser’s store, to “put the importer to a pen¬ 
alty.” This idea runs through the entire proceeding, and, according 
to the expressed opinion of the appraiser, is inseparable from it. The 
ascertainment of the true value of the goods, and the appraisement 
thereof, is thus coupled with the consideration whether a penalty will 
be involved; if so, a strong effort will be made to reduce the appraise¬ 
ment, in whole or in part, so that the advance will be a shade under 10 
per cent. This tenderness towards importers—this disposition of offi¬ 
cials to shield them from the legal consequences of undervaluation—has 
tended to encourage and establish the practice. 

Successful undervaluations have prevailed for so many years that the 
belief has generally obtained* that nothing short of legislation will sup¬ 
press them. That legislation is needed in this direction, no one will dis¬ 
pute. The adoption of specific duties wherever practicable would be 
a long step towards securing correct and uniform collection of duties, 
and remedial laws are needed to enable the Government to enforce the 
tariff; but we are satisfied that much of the existing condition of affairs 
is due to faults of administration that may be corrected. 

There is need of a thorough reorganization of the appraising depart¬ 
ment. The appraiser should devote all his time and energies to the 
great business institution under his charge, and this requirement should 
extend to all of the employes of the department. When it is considered 
that three-fourths of the importations of foreign merchandise coming to 
this country is entered at the port of New York, the importance of the 
careful administration of the appraising department cannot be overesti¬ 
mated. Not only are the revenues of the Government endangered by 
faulty or corrupt methods, but business interests are disturbed, and in 
some cases destroyed, by the failure of the appraising officers to make 
full, uniform, and prompt appraisements of imported merchandise. It 
is a serious question whether the existing business depression is not 
more or less due to loose and unbusiness-like methods of appraisement, 
whereby one merchant pays more duties upon the same article than 
another. 

The ease with which undervalued invoices have passed the appraisers 
has invited and encouraged excessive consignments from Europe. The 
tariff laws, if impartially and absolutely enforced, would prevent impor- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 47 

tations at unequal and undervalued prices, and would regulate and 
restrict the introduction of foreign merchandise in accordance with the 
healthy demands of trade. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


L. 

Circular No. 30. 

Treasury Department, December 26, 1848. 

Differences of practice existing in the several ports relative to the 
appraisement of merchandise, the following additional instructions are 
issued for the government of collectors, appraisers, and other officers 
of the customs, under the twenty-fourth section, act 30th of August, 
1842, which is in these words: “That it shall be the duty of all collec¬ 
tors and other officers of the customs to execute and carry into effect 
all instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury relative to the execu¬ 
tion of the revenue laws; and in case any difficulty shall arise as to the 
true construction or meaning of any part of such revenue laws, the 
decision of the Secretary of the Treasury shall be conclusive and bind¬ 
ing upon all such collectors and other officers of the customs.’ 7 

The interests of the country and of fair and honorable merchants 
require that this Department should, by every means in its power, se¬ 
cure not only the revenue against loss, but should maintain such mer¬ 
chants in their business against sales of imported articles at diminished 
rates, arising from fraud or undervaluation. 

To appraisers the Government looks for correct valuations of foreign 
imports. On these officers, more than any other, does the success of 
the ad valorem system depend. Their responsibilities are great, and 
it is expected that their efforts will not be relaxed to check every un¬ 
dervaluation or fraud upon the revenue, by* whomsoever attempted. 
In the strict and faithful performance of their duty, at times necessarily 
disagreeable, their judgment should have great weight with other offi¬ 
cers of the revenue service, and especially with the collectors of ports, 
who should in all cases render them every aid and co-operation in their 
power. 

The intent of the seventeenth section of the act of 30th of August, 
1842, in the appointment of merchant appraisers is evidently to give 
the merchants an opportunity to appeal from one class of appraisers 
to another. But it is clear that Congress did not design to relinquish 
the power in the Government to select the merchant appraisers to whom 
the case might be referred, nor to give the parties appealing any more 



48 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

voice in the selection of such appraisers than of any other Govern¬ 
ment officers. To consult the parties concerned, or allow them a voice 
in the selection of merchant appraisers, would soon result in permit¬ 
ting the importers to control the appraisement of their own goods, and 
it is presumed is not permitted at any port. 

Merchant appraisers should be particularly instructed that when act¬ 
ing in that capacity they are to be governed by the same rules and 
regulations as provided by law for the direction of regular appraisers, 
and are to act upon the principle that the invoice price, or even the 
price actually paid for an article of merchandise, is by no means a true 
criterion of the fair market value as prescribed by law. Adopt a con¬ 
trary principle, and one who is so fortunate as to have a quantity of 
merchandise given him would be entitled to receive it free of duty, or 
at a nominal duty, if purchased at nominal prices, and different rates 
would often be assessed by appraisers on articles of the same value. 
The fair market value intended by law is the general or ruling price 
of the article “in the principal markets of the country from which the 
same shall have been imported.” The Treasury circular of August 
7, 1848, declares that 4 4 forced sales in foreign markets at reduced 
prices, under extraordinary or peculiar circumstances, cannot be taken 
as the true market value of such goods.” 

To secure uniformity of action at the different ports, the merchant 
appraisers are to be selected and their appraisements made in the fol¬ 
lowing manner: When the appraisers all concur, they may designate 
five names, or, when such concurrence does not exist, the appraiser 
making the advance may designate five names of impartial merchants, 
citizens of the United States, familiar with the value of merchandise, 
and of the highest credit for integrity and fair-dealing, from whom it 
is recommended that the collector select two as the merchant apprais¬ 
ers, to act under the law, who shall be duly sworn as provided for in 
the Treasury instructions of July 6, 1847, omitting in the oath the name 
of the importer. In the notice to be sent to the appraisers selected as 
provided in the same instructions the name of the importer is also to be 
omitted. The names of the merchant appraisers selected shall also be 
withheld from the importers until such appraisers assemble for the 
performance of their duty, as it is important that no ex parte state¬ 
ments be permitted, the sole object being to obtain a fair and disinter¬ 
ested examination and valuation of the merchandise. When the col¬ 
lector lias fixed the time and place for the merchant appraisers to as¬ 
semble, he will notify the importer of such time and place, but not the 
names of the merchant appraisers. Such importer may be present if 
he desires, and every proper facility should be given him for a thor¬ 
ough examination and ascertainment of values. 

To facilitate collectors in settling their accounts, this reappraisement 
should take place immediately, or at all events not be delayed bey olid 
six days from the time the reappraisement is demanded, unless in the 
opinion of the merchant appraisers there are extraordinary circum¬ 
stances requiring an analysis, or proof not to be procured within that 
period. Should such delay extend beyond ten days, a statement of the 
case by the collector must be forwarded to this Department for its ex¬ 
amination. The collector, in such cases, shall also call on the regular 
appraisers for a statement, and transmit it to the Department, In all 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 49 


cases where the merchant appraisers assess a lower value than the reg¬ 
ular appraisers, the collector will report to the Department a full state¬ 
ment of the case, to be recorded here, together with the names of the 
merchant appraisers. He will also transmit at the same time to this 
Department for record here a statement which he will obtain of the case 
from the regular appraisers. 

In case the merchant appraisers are at variance with each other in their 
appraisements, and the collector compelled, according to law, to decide 
between them, it is expected that he will without delay, or within five 
days from the time the reappraisement is made, decide the question of 
value, and if he adopts the lowest appraisement made he will give the 
reasons for the same in his statement to be forwarded to this Depart¬ 
ment for record as directed above. 

This Department earnestly invites the co-operation of collectors, ap¬ 
praisers, and other officers of the customs in enforcing correct valua¬ 
tions, and will also be glad to receive information and assistance from 
all honorable merchants and citizens who desire to protect the revenue, 
to guard the rights of the honest trader, and to insure the faithful exe¬ 
cution of the laws. The selection of “ merchant appraisers” should 
not be confined exclusively to those connected with foreign imports, 
but, when the requisite knowledge exists, should be extended so as to 
embrace domestic manufacturers and producers and other citizens act¬ 
ing as merchants, although not dealing in foreign merchandise. 

In all cases where the advance by the regular appraisers is short of 
the penalty, they shall report to this Department the names of the im¬ 
porter, consignee, and consignor, together with the invoice value and 
rate advanced. 

The law requiring importers to give notice “forthwith” to the col¬ 
lector of a demand for reappraisement, no such reappraisement shall 
take place unless notice is given to the collector, in writing, of such 
demand within a period not longer than the day succeeding the notice 
of such appraisement, which the regular appraisers shall give in all 
cases as soon as the appraisement is made. 

In all cases where the goods are advanced by the regular appraisers 
20 per cent, more than the invoice and no reappraisement is called 
for, the said appraisers, on ascertaining that fact, shall report to the 
collector, in writing, whether the interests of the Government will best 
be promoted by taking the duty with the penalty, as prescribed by the 
laAv, or by taking the duty in kind, as authorized by the eighteenth sec¬ 
tion of the act of 30th of August, 1842, as enforced by the circular of 
this Department of the 28th of November, 1846, and if the appraisers 
advise the duty to be required in kind, it shall so be taken by the col¬ 
lector. In all such cases, also, when the goods are advanced by the reg- 
idar appraiser 20 per cent, above the invoice value, and a reappraise¬ 
ment is made by the merchant appraisers, the collector shall make a 
statement of the duty thus ascertained and fixed by him, including 
the penalty, if any, to the regular appraisers, who shall thereupon re¬ 
port in writing to the collector whether it is the interest of the Govern¬ 
ment to take the duty thus ascertained or require the duty in kind, 
and if the regular appraisers advise the duty to be required in kind, it 
shall so be taken by the collector. 

4 A 


50 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Iii all cases where the duty is taken in kind it is to be thus assessed 
under the law, according to the several schedules, viz : If the duty be 
100 per cent., the whole of the goods shall be taken; if 40 per cent., 
two-fifths; if 30 percent., three-tenths; if 25 per cent., one quarter; 
if 20 percent., one-fifth; if 15 per cent., three-twentieths; if 10 per 
cent., one-tenth; if 5 percent., one-twentieth; and the goods so taken 
in kind are to be sold as provided in Treasury circular of 28tli of No¬ 
vember, 1846. 

r ftiese regulations, whilst protecting the revenue against fraud or un¬ 
dervaluations, will insure correct invoices, inducing a compliance, where 
necessary, with the eighth section of the act of 30th July, 1846, and 
guard the interests of the fair and honorable merchant. 

Whenever it is found necessary by the regular appraisers or merchant 
appraisers to guard against fraud or undervaluation, they will carry 
into effect the following provisions of the second section of the act of 
the 10tli August, 1846, declaring that “in appraising all goods at any 
port of the United States heretofore subjected to specific duties, but 
upon which ad valorem duties are imposed by the act of the 30th of 
July last, entitled An act reducing the duty on imports and for other 
purposes, ? reference shall be had to values and invoices of similar goods 
imported during the last fiscal year, under such general and uniform 
regulations for the prevention of fraud or undervaluation as shall be 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury,” as enforced by circular 
instructions of the 11th of November, 1846, and 26th of November. 
1846. “The last fiscal year” designated in this section intended by 
Congress was “the last fiscal year 7 ’ preceding the enactment of that 
law, which was the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1846, to which 
reference is required by the law to values and invoices of similar goods 
when necessary to prevent fraud or undervaluation. 

Where goods are advanced in price by appraisement, the estimates 
of the percentage advance, to ascertain whether the same are liable to 
the penalty as provided for in the eighth section of the act of the 30th 
of July, 1846, must be made only on the article so raised in price, and 
such additional duty and penalty must be so levied and collected. In 
no case will the advance be estimated on the entire invoice, except 
where the goods are the same in quality, description, and value, and 
the same advance of price is made on the whole. 

E. J. WALKEE, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


51 


No. 7. 


New York, April 13, 1885. 

Sir : In the course of our examination of the appraiser’s office at this 
port, our attention has been called to a practice, which is common, of 
recalling invoices u for further consideration” after the report of ap¬ 
praisement has been made to the collector. 

A\ arrant is claimed for this practice in various decisions of the De¬ 
partment and in article 470 of the Regulations of 1884, but, in view 
of its rapid growth, the number of invoices recalled being 1,709 in 1884, 
against 667 in 1880, and its tendency to unsettle the law of appraise¬ 
ments, we deem it a proper subject for special report. 

The right of the appraiser to recall*invoices for the correction of 
manifest clerical errors before liquidation of the entry has always been 
recognized. Formerly, the specific reason for recall was expressed in 
the requisition upon the collector for the invoice, but, in December 
1881, a form of requisition was adopted in which the general term u for 
further consideration” is used, and no specific reason given. Under 
this requisition the invoice is returned to the appraiser as a matter of 
course, and he holds it competent to reconsider the invoice and reduce 
advanced values, although no appeal has been taken, and to change 
classifications as well as to correct clerical errors. 

These reconsidered appraisements are often made upon retained 
samples or samples furnished by the importer, the goods having been 
delivered, or they are made to conform to former reappraisements of 
similar goods. 

While it is not denied that the invoice may be returned to the ap¬ 
praiser for the correction of a manifest clerical error, it is submitted 
that iif the absence of appeal the importer is concluded by the first ap¬ 
praisement. There must be some time when the appraiser’s authority 
over the invoice is determined. The law provides that the result of a 
reappraisement shall be final and conclusive, and the regulations made 
an original appraisement unappealed equally final and conclusive 
against the importer. This seems a fair construction of the statute, and 
works no harm to the importer. His remedy by appeal is saved to him, 
and there is no valid reason why, neglecting this, he may resort to a 
remedy of doubtful legality, often resting in the discretion of a subordi¬ 
nate appraising officer. The importer is presumed in law, and is known, 
in fact, to be vigilant in the defence of his legal rights, which are amply 
assured to him. The law is plain, and there is no pretence that it fails 
in its manifest purpose. 

The claim is made, particularly in the silk division, where the prac¬ 
tice is most frequent, that reconsidered appraisements are in the interest 
of equity to the importer, and that, where an invoice has been advanced 
slightly beyond 10 per cent., it is no more than right that the importer 
should be relieved from payment of the 20 per cent, additional duty if 
possible. But when it is considered that he has himself disregarded 
liis legal remedy of appeal, and when the statement of the appraising 
officers is also considered that nearly 90 per cent, of imported silks are 
undervalued on entry, and that, too, intentionally, the reasons for 
equity intervention are not apparent. The appraising officers are not 
to assume to do equity, of which there is likely to be a varying stand¬ 
ard, but they are to appraise the goods at the time and in the manner 
prescribed by law. It may be suggested that there would be no occa- 


52 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


sion for this assumption of equity jurisdiction if the merchandise was 
entered at its proper value. 

We are unable to find any authority for the recall of an invoice, and 
the change of value by the appraiser, except in cases where the pro¬ 
ceedings have been kept open by appeal. Pending an appeal a recall 
seems to have the sanction of the courts, but it is difficult to conceive 
of a case where such action by an appraiser would be necessary or 
justifiable. 

Any new information received by the appraiser may be laid before 
the reappraising officers, who are a legal board of appraisement. They 
have acquired control of the invoice, and it is competent for them to 
sustain the original appraisement or to advance or reduce the values in 
accordance with their own judgment. They should not only be per¬ 
mitted, but should be required, to complete and report the reappraise¬ 
ment. If the appraiser withdraws the invoice and reduces his valuation, 
it should be returned to them, that they may advance it in the interests 
of the Government, if, in their opinion, justice demands it. An appeal 
being taken, it should not then be recognized as within the control of 
the importer. He ought not to be permitted to withdraw it pending 
reappraisement, at least without the consent of the Secretary of the 
Treasury. 

We invite attention to two cases as examples in which the importers 
withdrew their appeals, giving as a reason that the appraiser had re¬ 
called the invoice and reduced values to their satisfaction or below a 
penalty. 

It is fairly gathered from these cases that the goods were entered at 
an undervaluation in anticipation of an advance within 10 per cent.; 
but as the advance exceeded 10 per cent-., an appeal was taken and 
abandoned upon a satisfactory change by the appraiser. There ffppears 
to have been no good reason for the recall. The reappraising board 
should have been allowed to complete its work, and not been made a 
convenience pending negotiations with the appraising officers. 

We cite other cases illustrative of the practice. On Aovember 1,1884, 
the appraiser recalled eight invoices of one firm, entered at various 
times in July, August, and September previous, and reduced the ap¬ 
praisements by allowing discounts previously disallowed by the exam¬ 
iner after full investigation of the subject at the time of appraisement. 
This was done at the request of an importer who had neglected his 
appeal. 

In August of last year two invoices of kid gloves imported, respect¬ 
ively, by G. Bossange and Passavant & Co. were advanced and went to 
reappraisement. In the one case the merchant appraiser was a repu¬ 
table merchant and a dealer in gloves. In the other the merchant ap¬ 
praiser neither imported nor dealt in the goods; his name was not on 
the list sent by the appraiser - to the collector with the appeal, and the 
deputy collector who appointed him could give no reason for his action 
except a possible one, which was found inconsistent with the facts. 

The two reappraisements ran together for some days, the same wit¬ 
nesses being examined in each case. Although the amount of duties 
involved was not large, the importers were represented by legal counsel, 
with a view, presumably, of fixing as low values as possible to control 
future importations. In the case in which the merchant appraiser was 
not a dealer in gloves (that of Passavant & Co.) the examiner’s ad¬ 
vance was stricken off. This result was apparently due, in a measure, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


53 


to the intervention and influence of the appraiser, who personally ap¬ 
peared before the reappraising board and opposed the advance, which 
was apparently warranted by the testimony of expert witness. He gives 
as a reason for his action that he had reappraised the same make of 
gloves when he was general appraiser, and was satisfied that the values 
then reached, which were the same as the entered values, were correct. 

The other invoice, which embraced gloves of a different make and 
quality, was then recalled by the appraiser from the reappraising board, 
and the value reduced, although the reappraisers were prepared to 
make their report and objected to this action of the appraiser. There 
is no reason to doubt that had they been permitted to make their report 
they would have sustained the advance in accordance with the expert 
testimony in the case. 

The valuations fixed for the gloves, imported by Passavant & Co. 
still remain as the standard of appraisement for those gloves, and large 
importations have been made upon that basis. These values appear 
from the testimony to be less than the prices at which similar gloves 
are purchased and entered by other importers. It should be stated that 
in both of the cases described, and the subsequent importations, the 
goods were consigned, not purchased. 

The prices fixed by the appraiser upon the Bossange invoice remained 
as the standard for those goods until some time in January last, when 
the examiner advanced another invoice, a reappraisement was had, the 
the same reputable merchant and dealer in gloves acting as merchant 
appraiser, and the examiner’s advance was sustained. In this instance 
also the appraiser was appealed to to interfere, and he recalled the in¬ 
voice, but upon investigation decided to send it back to the reapprais¬ 
ing board for their action, upon the ground that the gloves in question 
were superior to those of the former invoice. On the other hand, the 
examiner and merchant appraiser state that the qualities were the same 
in both cases. 

Another case mentioned in the testimony is noticeable for two recalls, 
one after liquidation, when 20 per cent, was deducted by order of the 
appraiser from the invoice and entered, value, as not an element or du¬ 
tiable value. This amount is represented in the invoice by the word 
“majoration,” which, it is now claimed, fifteen months subsequent to 
entry, was intended to cover transatlantic insurance, although the term 
itself, as we are advised, has no such meaning, but relates to value. 

If it is held that the appraiser may recall invoices and reduce values, 
it should not be done upon samples. The law requires him to open, 
examine, and appraise the merchandise, and if he may reconsider his 
former appraisement, the interests of the revenue demand as full exam¬ 
ination as is required in the first instance. The goods should be subject 
inspection. The Government is denied an amended appraisement upon 
samples; the importer should have no better nor higher right. He has 
no ground of complaint when, upon his own election, the goods have 
passed from Government control. 

A new appraisement, made to correspond to a former reappraisement, 
is especially objectionable. A reappraisement only settles the value of 
the invoice under consideration; it should go no further. When the 
methods of conducting reappraisements are considered, it will be under¬ 
stood that it is not wise to adopt them as inflexible standards for subse¬ 
quent appraisements. The law contemplates the appraisement of every 
invoice, and the examiner cannot lawfully subordinate his judgment to 
that of a reappraising board. 


54 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Authority for amended appraisements is claimed under Decision 3774, 
and the accompanying opinion of Assistant Secretary French, who cites 
with approval the then existing practice in New York, and the case of 
Passavant & Co., where the Department, by letter to the collector at 
New York under date of February 29, 1876, permitted the reappraising 
board to review its action. 

Reference is also made to Decisions 4269 and 6563, to Department 
letter to the collector at Philadelphia of May 28, 1883, and to letters of 
the Department to the collector at New York, dated, respectively, De¬ 
cember 8 and 11, 1879 ; September 8, 1884; and January 3, 1885. 

If these decisions are held to be of binding force, we suggest that their 
application should not be left to the discretion of the appraising officers, 
nor should they be extended to authorize recalls, unless for correction 
of clerical errors, except upon express authority of the Secretary of the 
Treasury. 

After an invoice has been advanced, and the importer, having been 
notified has neglected his appeal, it is too late for him to complain. It 
is not decent for him to personally importune the appraising officer for 
a review, nor is it proper for the latter to listen to such appeals. 

When it is understood that these recpiests are often made to exam¬ 
iners, whose suggestions for the recall are always recognized, the danger 
of the practice as affecting the interests of the Government and the in¬ 
tegrity and reputation of the officers is not likely to be overestimated. 

It will be noticed, by reference to the testimony, that the practice is 
condemned by several of the assistant appraisers and examiners. 

Whether the practice is one which may be permissible under the 
law or not, we think the statements made and the examples cited fur¬ 
nish ample grounds for condemning it as inconsistent with the interests 
of the revenue, and as tending to demoralize the public service. 

We submit that an appraisement sh6uld be carefully made in the first 
instance, and all errors of judgment as to values should be left to the 
correction of a reappraisement, either upon the order of the collector, 
under section 2929, or upon appeal of the importer, under section 2930 
of the Revised Statutes. ♦ 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 8. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York , April 20, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to our report of the 23d ultimo, relating 
to drawbacks on bags, we beg to submit the following additional infor¬ 
mation and suggestions on the subject of drawbacks : 

As shown by the tabular statement herewith enclosed, (marked A,) 
the total amount of drawbacks on manufactured articles exported at 
this port during the calendar year 1884 was $4,372,880.84. Of this 
amount, $3,289,658.77 was paid on refined sugar. 



R3P0RT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


55 


We find that the regulations as to the inspection, sampling, and 
lading of sugar exported for benefit of drawback are not fully complied 
with. They require that samples shall be taken from at least one pack¬ 
age in ten, either at the refinery or at the place of lading, and that the 
merchandise shall be transported forthwith, under the supervision of an 
inspecting officer, to the export vessel on bonded lighters or trucks. 
In practice, the inspector takes only an occasional sample of the sugar, 
and leaves the packages in the possession and control of the exporter, 
to he sent to the exporting vessel at his own option and convenience, 
often on a day subsequent to inspection and sampling. If convenient, 
the inspector is present at the ship at the time he is informed by the 
exporter that the sugar is to be laden, but he does not remain and su¬ 
pervise the lading, nor does he know that it is sugar that.is put on 
board, or, if sugar, that.it is the same previously inspected by him. When 
it is not all taken by the ship to which it is sent, as sometimes occurs, the 
remainder is left nominally in the custody of the district officer, but 
really in the charge of the exporter or transportation company. Pack¬ 
ages thus left over are subsequently taken up on another export entry, 
but no new inspection is had. nor are they laden under the supervision 
of an inspector. In any case his report is based upon the statement 
of the receiving clerk of the vessel that a certain number of packages 
have gone on board. One of the inspectors states that he has no 
knowledge of the contents of the packages at tlietime of lading, 14 whether 
it is sugar or sand. 77 

It is to be presumed that the leading houses exporting refined sugar 
are above and free from corrupt practices; but in a vast business, so im¬ 
portant as to be regulated by specific and detailed instructions, it should 
not be left to the discretion of a subordinate officer to modify or disre¬ 
gard them, thus opening a door for fraud. 

Although, as a matter of fact, the officer does not properly inspect, 
sample, or supervise the lading of the goods, his formal certificates in 
this regard accord with the regulations. It is claimed that, owing to 
the small number of officers assigned to debenture duty, it is impossible 
to comply literally with the regulations. 

It is, however, submitted that, inasmuch as the honesty and good faith 
of the exporters constitute, under the present practice, the principal 
safeguard against fraud, it would be better to accept their statements 
as sufficient proof of exportation than to require or permit sworn offi¬ 
cers of the Government to make official certificates in form which are 
not true in fact. 

Although information has come to us that the present drawback rates 
on refined sugar are excessive, we have not fully considered the subject, 
as we are advised that the Department has the matter already under 
investigation. We venture to call attention, however, to the tact that 
the present allowance of drawback on hard refined sugar appears to be 
greater than the duty paid on importation. Sugar pays duty according 
to its saccharine strength as shown by polariscopic test. If an imported 
raw sugar was absolutely pure, testing 100 degrees, it would pay no more 
than 2.40 cents per x>ouud duty, whereas, ujSon hard refined sugar which 
cannot test higher than 100 degrees, there is allowed a drawback of 2.82 
cents per pound. The law provides that there shall be allowed on all 
articles wholly manufactured of materials imported, upon which duties 
have been paid when exported, a drawback equal in amount to the duty 
paid on such material, and no more. Drawbacks on sugar are subject to 
a deduction of 1 per cent, for the use of the Government. 


56 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Except upon the theory that there is a loss of crystallizable sugar iu 
the process of refining, (and we are informed that there is no such loss,) 
it is not easy to understand how it is possible that more that $2.40 duties 
could have been collected upon the raw sugar entering into the manu¬ 
facture of 100 pounds of refined sugar. 

The present drawback rates appear to have been established upon the 
average duty paid on all imported sugars and the estimated product of 
refineries of the different grades of sugar and of sirup. We are in¬ 
formed that these estimates are not based upon actual knowledge of the 
relative proportions of the different grades of sugar produced, as refiners 
have declined to give information on that subject. Whatever may be 
the basis of the present rates, it is obvious that there can be no such 
thing as stable and definite proportions of the various grades of sugar 
produced. A refiner will make more or less hard sugar, as it may seem 
to him profitable. Some will make a greater proportion of hard sugars 
than others. Some may use high grades of raw sugars, while others 
may use low grades. The proportions of the different grades produced 
are wholly arbitrary and subject to frequent change. 

For the. purpose of fixing drawback rates, it is not difficult to arrange 
the proportions of grades produced and to adjust a drawback not to 
exceed the entire duty paid in such a way as to give an excessive rate 
on hard sugars and an insufficient rate upon the lower grades. In such 
an adjustment, if the entire output were exported, the Government would 
pay no more than the law contemplates; but if the exportation were 
limited to the hard sugar, it is evident that it would result in actual loss 
to the Government. Whether the present drawback rates have been 
properly adjusted or not, it is a fact that of the 126,026,964 pounds of 
sugar exported in 1884, 125,674,303 pounds was hard sugar, paying the 
highest rate of drawback. 

The export of bituminous coal with benefit of drawback, to be used 
as fuel upon steamers, is permitted by law. The regulations governing 
such exports are found in practice to be inadequate to the protection of 
the revenue. They do not contemplate continuous customs supervision 
of duty-paid coal from time of importation to exportation, and the offi¬ 
cers charged with inspection and weighing are unable to distinguish 
foreign from domestic coal by its appearance. Illustrations of the diffi¬ 
culties and uncertainties attending the administration of this law are 
found in the two cases named below. 

An export entry of 200 tons of bituminous coal, to be used as fuel on 
the steamer “Viceroy,” imported per “State of Indiana,” was made 
on the 28th day of January, 1885. The weigher’s return of February 
3, 1885, showed the weighing of 219 tons; and the inspector, February 
7, 1885, certified that he had examined the coal, and that it had been 
laden under his supervision on board the steamer “Viceroy.” It was 
subsequently found that of this amount but 107 tons was foreign duty- 
paid coal. The coal was brought alongside the steamer in two canal - 
boats, one of them containing about 107 tons. It is now understood 
that the coal in the other boat was domestic; but to the officers it pre¬ 
sented no different appearance, and they acted in good faith, supposing 
it to be foreign coal covered by the entry and their orders. They had 
just as much proof as to the foreign origin of the one as the other. ITad 
not the exporter advised the collector of the mistake in this case, the 
drawback would have been paid on the quantity entered. 

In another case an expert entry was made for 263 tons of coal on 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


57 


March 3, 1885. The proper officer refused to certify to its shipment, 
because he was not notified of the arrival of the coal in his district until 
after it had been laden on the exporting vessel, and he had no oppor¬ 
tunity to inspect it, and for the further reason that he was informed by 
the engineer of the vessel that it was domestic coal. It was subsequently 
learned from the shippers of the coal that they delivered to the vessel 
459 tons, of which, as they stat.e, only 62 tons was foreign. 

In view of the fact that the officer, by inspection, cannot distinguish 
foreign from domestic coal, and that in these cases grave mistakes were 
made, which might frequently occur without discovery, it is evident * 
that the present regulations do not stand in the way of, but rather invite, 
fraud. 

We can see no way of insuring the protection of the Government in 
this matter, except to refuse the allowance of drawback on coal which 
has passed from the control or cognizance of the customs officers. 

As to drawbacks on manufactured articles, there is an inherent weak¬ 
ness in the chain of proof connecting the imported materials with the 
manufactured article exported when those materials have passed from 
the custody and knowledge of the customs officers. This weakness be¬ 
comes more apparent when the manufacturer has no actual knowledge 
of the importation of the articles used, or when the exporter has no 
actual knowledge of the importation or manufacture, as is often the 
case. 

We respectfully recommend that the regulations relating to draw¬ 
backs on articles manufactured from duty-paid materials be so amended 
as to require an unbroken chain of positive evidence, resting upon the 
actual knowledge of persons making the affidavits, identifying and 
tracing such materials from the importation thereof to the manufacture 
and exportation of the goods in question. 

Where the proof of such identity rests only upon the information and 
belief of the affiants, as is now the practice, there must always be a 
doubt as to whether duty has been paid upon the identical articles upon 
which drawback is allowed. 

The testimony taken in regard to drawbacks is herewith enclosed. 

Very respectfully 

GEO. C. TICHEHOR, 

A. K. TIHGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDIHG, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Ho. 9. 

Hew York, May 18, 1885. 

Sir : We respectfully submit the following report in regard to allow¬ 
ances for damage on imported merchandise at this port: 

Section 2927 of the Revised Statutes provides that, “in respect to 
articles that have been damaged during the voyage, whether subject to 
a duty ad valorem or chargeable with a specific duty, either by num¬ 
ber, weight, or measure, the appraisers shall ascertain and certify to 
what rate or percentage the merchandise is damaged, and the rate of 



58 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


percentage of damage so ascertained and certified shall be deducted 
from the original amount subject to a duty ad valorem, or from the 
actual or original number, weight, or measure on which specific duties 
would have been computed.” 

Articles 575 to 595, inclusive, of the G-eneral Regulations, prescribe 
in detail the mode of procedure by which damage is to be ascertained. 

Examinations of merchandise for allowance of damage are under the 
supervision of the assistant appraiser in charge of the first division ot 
the appraiser’s department, pursuant to the provisions of section 2943 
of the Revised Statutes. Certain examiners are assigned to this duty, 
who inspect the merchandise claimed to be damaged wherever it may 
be, either on the docks, at the merchants’ stores, or in bonded ware¬ 
house. The amount of duties remitted on account of damage allow¬ 
ances at this port, as shown by the enclosed statement, marked A, was 
in 1881, $568,635.11; in 1882, $468,598.25; in 1883, $313,333.34; in 
January, February, March, and April, 1884, $112,160.21. 

We were unable to obtain statistics from the custom-house covering 
the time subsequent to April, 1884. 

Statement B, herewith submitted, shows in detail the various articles 
upon which allowances were made in 1883, and the rate per cent, of 
damage to the amount of duty collected on each article. 

The principal articles on this list are as follows: Almonds, 81 per 
cent. ; almonds, shelled, 4.1 per cent. ; nuts, dutiable at 2 cents per 
pound, 10.4 per cent. ; currants, 3.4 per cent. ; chiccory, 2.4 per cent. ; 
dates, 4.9 per cent.; filberts and walnuts, 10.8 per cent..; figs, 3.8 per 
cent. ; fire crackers, 10.4 per cent. ; grapes, 2.9 per cent.; oranges, 8.1 
per cent. ; prunes, 51 per cent. ; preserved fruits, (citron, &c.,) 21 per 
cent.; raisins, 2.3 per cent. 

There are a number of persons known as damage brokers, who make 
it a business to obtain damage allowances, and whose compensation de¬ 
pends ui)on the amount allowed. Importers have come to understand 
that these brokers can secure more favorable action from the examining 
officers than could be obtained by the merchants without their inter¬ 
position. For this reason, the practice of employing them to “put 
through ” damage claims has become general. These brokers seek to 
cultivate intimate relations with the examiners, and, as we have reason 
to believe, have in most cases excercised undue influence over them. 
They are usually present and advising at the examinations of the mer¬ 
chandise upon which damage is claimed. They have endeavored to 
induce importers to make application for damage allowance upon sound 
goods, and upon the refusal of the merchant to become a party to such a 
fraud have threatened to use their influence with the appraising officers 
to his prejudice. There is no doubt that the less scrupulous importers 
have yielded to the importunities of the brokers, and through them 
have obtained allowances upon goods which had sustained no damage 
upon the voyage of importation. 

The records of the custom-house show that of various importers re¬ 
ceiving fruits and nuts during the months of October, November, and 
December, 1884, certain of them obtained damage allowances, while it 
is a fact that others, receiving the same kind of goods at the same time 
by the same vessels, not only made no claim for damage, but said their 
goods were sound. 

As the law limits allowances to damage which occurred on the voyage 
of importation, the question whether the goods were sound when shipped 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


59 


is an important one for the consideration of the appraising officers. 
So far as we can learn, it has not been their usual practice to make 
searching inquiry on this point, although their reports always contain 
the formula “satisfactory evidence of sound shipment.” The return of 
the officers in some cases recites the cause of the damage allowed as 
“unknown.” In such cases the officer arbitrarily assumes that the 
damage occurred on the voyage of importation, when he is ignorant of 
the cause and has no evidence on the subject. 

The Regulations (article 58(5) require actual inspection and examina¬ 
tion of the goods upon which damage is claimed, and prescribe that it 
must be a substantial and actual damage received during the voyage. 
If the articles be contained in packages, each package upon which dam¬ 
age is claimed, except as to certain classes of goods, must be opened and 
examined. The excepted classes are green and dried fruits, articles in 
sealed packages, soda-ash and caustic-soda, sugar in bags and mats, and 
rice in bags. These may be examined by opening 10 per cent, or more 
of the packages. These provisions of the regulations have been disre¬ 
garded. Not only have the examiners failed to open and examine all the 
packages where the regulations so require, but they have not examined 
10 per cent, of the goods within the excepted classes. The practice ap¬ 
pears to have been to open one or two packages of an importation, 
and from the appearance of the contents to make up a judgment as to 
the whole, giving an average allowance on all or a portion of the goods 
for which claim is made, in plain violation of article 590 of the Regu¬ 
lations. 

One case came to our notice where the broker, in the interest of the 
importer claiming the damage allowance, in company with an exam¬ 
iner, called upon the purchaser of a part of the importation and de¬ 
manded permission to see the goods; and although such permission was 
refused, with the statement that the goods were sound, they were re¬ 
turned as damaged, and an allowance made to the importer. Another 
instance is shown by the testimony where an allowance was made upon 
twenty cases of crockery, one of which had already been shipped from 
the city. The time occupied by the examiner in making this examina¬ 
tion was said to have been only ten minutes, less time than would be 
required for the unpacking and examination of a single case. 

One of the damage returns examined by us, as originally made, 
showed no damage allowed on thirty cases of chestnuts. This return 
was cancelled, and an allowance of 35 per cent, made upon the same 
merchandise by order of the appraiser upon samples, although the ex¬ 
aminer stated that he did not know that the samples represented the 
nuts, which he declared were in tine order and in no w r ay damaged when 
originally examined by him. 

Another return, as originally made, disallowed damage on one hundred 
bags of filberts. This ret urn was cancelled by the assistant appraiser, evi¬ 
dently upon the solicitation of the broker, and a re-examination ordered, 
whereupon a return was made allowing a damage of “3 percent, on fifty 
bags, the other fifty not being found.” This return was also cancelled 
by the assistant appraiser, and another return made by different exam¬ 
iners, who made an allowance of 121 per cent, upon the whole lot of 
one hundred bags. It is evident that these officers could not have ex¬ 
amined the whole lot, as the previous return showed only fifty bags 
remaining in the warehouse. The testimony is clear that in this case 
the merchandise was in sound condition, and had received no damage 
whatever on the voyage of importation. 


60 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

It appears to be the practice of some importers of merchandise liable 
to damage upon the voyage of importation, presumably upon the repre¬ 
sentations of the brokers, to make application for allowances, and to 
take the oath prescribed by the regulations, that the affiant has per¬ 
sonally inspected and examined the merchandise described in the appli¬ 
cation, and that the same has sustained damage on the voyage of im¬ 
portation, without any actual knowledge of the condition of the goods. 
In one case, where the application and the oath had been made in due 
form, and the appraiser had made an allowance of 10 per cent, damage, 
there was found indorsed upon the return a waiver of damage by the 
importer, as the goods were sound. 

It is represented that damaged have been substituted for sound goods 
in warehouse before examination, and an instance is given where the 
same lot of damaged nuts served to procure allowances on several sub¬ 
sequent importations. If this can be done, as we believe it has been, 
the opportunity and temptation for such fraud are greater when the 
goods have been for some time in possession of the importer, and are 
examined at his store. 

Having become satisfied, by personal examination of a large number 
of importations of fire-crackers remaining in warehouse, upon which 
damage had been allowed, that such allowances were, in some cases, 
wholly unwarranted, and in others excessive, we reported the facts to 
the collector, who ordered reappraisements for damage, by three mer¬ 
chants, under authority of section 2929 of the Revised Statutes. More 
than forty importations were thus re-examined, upon which the damage 
allowance was either disallowed entirely or greatly reduced. A sched¬ 
ule, marked 0, is herewith submitted, showing the original allowances, 
and the action of the reappraising merchants in each case. In one 
instance only the merchants made an allowance greater than that of 
the damage examiners. 

We also reported to the collector fifteen importations, comprising dried 
fruit, nuts, and chiccory remaining in warehouse, upon which we believed 
excessive damage had been allowed. In these cases he also ordered re¬ 
appraisements by the principal appraiser, under section 2929, resulting 
in the disallowance of the damage upon ten of the fifteen importations 
referred to, no change being made in the others. 

We are satisfied that the inferiority in quality of goods when shipped 
has been made the basis of damage allowance through ignorance or dis¬ 
honesty of the appraising officers, when no damage had occurred on the 
voyage of importation. Mistakes of this kind are liable to be made by 
skilled and honest experts, especially as to nuts or fruits which are of a 
perishable nature, but it is an unwarranted assuumption that all un¬ 
soundness and imperfection found in these articles result from the voyage 
of importation, as seems to have been generally accepted by the officers 
at this port. The examiners seek for defects not considered by dealers 
in these articles as necessarily resulting from tie voyage, and make 
allowances upon a different principle from that recognized in business 
transactions, and the fact, as stated by those competent to judge, that 
nine-tenths of this class of goods returned damaged are sold for a sound 
price is thus accounted for. 

We are convinced that the interests of the revenue and of honest 
importers demand a repeal of the law permitting allowances for damage. 
The law is equitable in itself, but its proper administation is impracti¬ 
cable. No better proof of this can be cited than the fact that the im- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


61 


porters who scruple to make improper claims for damage are being 
crowded out of business in certain classes of goods upon which allow¬ 
ances are usually made by the competition of firms of comparatively 
small capital and inferior advantages as buyers in the foreign markets. 

The discontinuance ot these allowances by law would work no hard¬ 
ship, as the importer can protect himself by insuring for the full value 
of the goods, duty paid, instead of the foreign value, as is now the 
practice. We believe the general sentiment of the business community 
to be favorable to this view. The chamber of commerce of this city 
recently adopted a report favoring the abolishment of damage allow¬ 
ance, from which we extract the following: 

“From investigations in marine insurance circles, your committee 
are able to state that the insurance of 'the duties on goods which it is 
proposed to deprive of damage allowances would be a very simple 
operation and an inexpensive charge; and, although in so far as such 
insurance is additional expense it is open to objection, the small outlay 
would be infinitely preferable to the demoralization which damage al¬ 
lowances, as now made, work all around.” 

We have laid the facts herein set forth before the appraiser, who has 
given the subject his attention, and has taken steps to correct the abuses 
in the damage department, so far as practicable. 

The conclusions stated in this report are based upon our personal in¬ 
vestigation of a large number of importations on which damage allow¬ 
ance has been made upon goods still in bonded warehouse, as well as 
upon the testimony herewith submitted. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOB, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 10. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York , May 19, 1885. 

Sir : Bespectfully referring to Department letter of the 8th instant, 
covering a report from Special Agent Ayer, with enclosures, in regard 
to the action of the appraising officers at this port upon an invoice of 
embroideries imported by A. Bappard & Co., in January last, we beg 
to report as follows : 

The statement contained in the report of Special Inspector Harrison, 
accompanying Mr. Ayer’s report, that the examiners who make advances 
from which appeals are taken are “ excluded” by the general appraiser 
from reappraisements, is not in accordance with the facts. General 
Appraiser Perry states that the examiners are present as a rule, and 
that if they are not, and he needs their advice or assistance in reaching 
the facts, he always sends for them. 

While it is doubtless the intention of the general appraiser in all cases 
to have the examiner who makes the advance present at the reappraise¬ 
ment to explain his action and give the reasons why it should be sus- 



62 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


tained, yet invoices have been reappraised, and in the hurry and con¬ 
fusion with which business has been transacted the absence of the 
examiner has not been noticed, and lie has been given no opportunity to 
be heard. 

We have suggested to the general appraiser that he make it a rule to 
notify the assistant appraiser of the division in which the goods were 
passed and the examiner of the merchandise of the time when the re¬ 
appraisement is to be held, so that they may always be in attendance. 

With respect to the failure of the appraising officers in the case of 
Rappard & Co. mentioned to take action upon the report ot under¬ 
valuation made by the Government expert at St. Galle, we have heard 
the statement of Examiner Fitch.* who passed the invoice. He claims 
that, in view of that report, he gave the goods upon that invoice an 
unusually thorough examination, but was unable, after carefully count¬ 
ing the stitching in many patterns, to confirm the values reported by the 
expert, and that he therefore passed the invoice as correct. He admits, 
however, that he did not examine the goods represented by the par¬ 
ticular patterns upon which the expert reported. 

The mode of appraising consigned invoices of embroideries at this 
port and Philadelphia appears to us to be faulty in the extreme. It 
was adopted in 1878, upon the recommendation of the board of general 
appraisers, at the suggestion of the appraiser at Philadelphia, and has 
received the quasi sanction of the Department. 

The value of the goods in the gray plus the cost of stitching is ascer¬ 
tained, and to this is added 10 per cent., to represent manufacturer’s 
profit. To the sum of these items is added the cost of bleaching and 
finishing. The value thus obtained is considered the proper dutiable 
value. We think it clear that if these goods are to be appraised on the 
basis of the cost of production, the items to be included to make up such 
cost should be (1) cost of the muslin in the gray, (2) cost of stitching, 
(3) cost of bleaching and finishing, (4) interest and general expenses, 
say, 10 per cent., (5) at least 10 per cent, for manufacturer’s profit. 
This would bring the value of consigned goods as nearly equal to that of 
purchased goods as practicable by this method of valuation. But each 
item of cost must be fully given. There is reason to believe that the 
cost of stitching, which is the principal element of value in embroideries, 
has been understated in the invoices of certain houses receiving con¬ 
signed goods, as well as the cost of bleaching and finishing, and that 
the examiner, although advised of the correct figures by the consular 
reports, has failed to advance the invoices, but lias taken as his guide 
the importer’s statement as to such cost, rather than the official report 
of the consul. 

It appears that about one-half in number of the invoices of cotton em¬ 
broideries imported here are of goods actually purchased, the others, 
embracing fully two-thirds of the value of all of such importations, being 
consigned to houses here by their branch houses in St. Galle. 

It would seem that with the means of ascertaining market values 
afforded by the purchased invoices, the examiner should have no diffi¬ 
culty in appraising consigned goods. But it appears that no comparison 
of the two classes of invoices is made for the purpose of appraisement. 
Consigned goods are invariably passed upon what is known as the 
“stitch basis,” above described. The examiner states that he considers 
himself bound to pass the goods in this way, in accordance with the 
long-established practice, which is understood to have the approval of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 63 

tlie Depart meat, and this, too, notwithstanding the fact that he found 
purchased goods tested by the same rule to be invoiced invariably higher, 
in some cases exceeding the consigned prices as much as 100 per cent. 

It is easily seen that with different standards of valuation for pur¬ 
chased and consigned goods there will be manifest inequality in the 
rates of duty collected, and one class of importers will profit at the ex¬ 
pense of the other, resulting in demoralization of trade and loss to the 
revenue. 

Serious complaints have been made to us by representatives of H. B. 
Claflin Co., E. S. Jaffray & Co., Arnold, Constable & Co., Marshall 
Field & Co., Morrison, Herriman & Co., and others of the prevailing 
methods of appraisement, whereby they are driven out of trade by what 
they deem dishonest competition. 

We have brought this matter to the attention of the appraiser, and 
are assured that he will spare no effort'to correct the evil complained of. 

, Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOK, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Special Agents. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


INVESTIGATIONS AT SEVERAL PORTS INTO AP¬ 
PRAISEMENTS AND CLASSIFICATION. 


No. 1. 

INVESTIGATION BY MESSRS. COOMBS, HINDS, AND LAPP. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , 1). < 7 ., June 27, 1885. 

Gentlemen : You are hereby instructed to investigate the entry, 
appraisement, and classification of imported merchandise at New York, 
Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, for the purpose of securing uni¬ 
formity of valuation and classification, and correcting such errors and 
irregularities as may be discovered. 

You will make careful inquiry as to persons employed at the several 
ports in connection with the business mentioned, and will report the 
names of all officers and employes found to be unfit for the proper per¬ 
formance of official duty, whether by reason of in competency, indolence, 
intemperance, or other cause. Upon this branch of your inquiry, you 
will consult with the several appraisers, but you will not be governed 
by their views unless they accord with your understanding of the facts. 
The object of these investigations is to promote the efficiency of the 
public service, and you will submit any suggestions you may deem 
proper to that end. 

In the course of your labors under these instructions, you will con¬ 
sult and co-operate with Special Agents Tichenor and Tingle, who are 
assigned to the investigation of these subjects generally, and are in¬ 
structed to give you such assistance and advice as they may find prac¬ 
ticable from time to time. 

The four general appraisers have each been directed to obtain samples 




64 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

of textiles and other merchandise of which samples may be taken, which 
may be imported into the several ports after the 30th instant, to be 
scheduled, arranged, and classified, and brought together at the board 
of general appraisers at Flew York for examination and comparison. 

At a time to be hereafter designated, it is desired that you will meet 
the board of general appraisers and Agents Tichenor and Tingle, for the 
purpose of examining and comparing such samples with those which 
may be obtained by you in the course of your inquiries. 

A copy of the instructions addressed to the general appraisers, is en¬ 
closed for your information and guidance as to retention, classification, 
and arrangement of samples. 

I am, very respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

H. W. Coombs, General Appraiser. 

B. H. Hinds and Chas. H. Lapp, Special Agents. 


No. 2. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. <7., August 3, 1885. 

Gentlemen : In carrying out the Department’s instructions of the 
27th of June last, so far as relates to the port of Boston, it is desired 
that you co-operate with Special Agent Bingham in making and report¬ 
ing the regular examination of the manner in which the customs busi¬ 
ness is done at that port. 

It being important that this examination be made at an early date, 
you are directed to proceed to the port of Boston for that purpose with 
the least possible delay. 

Yery respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Messrs. Coombs, Hinds, and Lapp, 

U. S. Appraiser’s Stores , New Tori:, N. Y. 


No. 3. 

Office of the Board of U. S. General Appraisers, 

Corner of Washington and Hubert Streets , 

New York , August 5, 1885. 

Sir : We have the honor to report that, in obedience to instructions, 
the commission appointed by Department letter of June 27 convened 
at this port on the 7th ultimo, for the investigation of the subjects 
specified therein. 

It became evident-to us early in our investigation that the abuses 
resulting from the use of pro forma invoices had grown to such magni¬ 
tude as to demand our first attention. We have, therefore, made an 
exhaustive inquiry into the matter, and desire in this preliminary report 
to lay before the Department the facts as developed. 

Previous to the act of June 22, 1874, an entry on pro forma invoice 
could be made only on the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1863. It was, moreover, 
required that the pro forma invoices so presented should have been 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUTY. 


65 


made by the shipper of the goods, and should correspond in all respects 
with the certified invoice, for the production of which bond was re¬ 
quired to be given. 

Under the act of June 22, 1874, the privilege of entering merchan¬ 
dise valued at more than $100 on proforma invoices was enlarged, and 
the importer was allowed to use such invoice, or u statement in the form 
of an invoice,” without application to the Secretary of the Treasury, by 
simply making affidavit as to the reason why it was impracticable to 
produce uncertified invoice, and by conforming to certain requirements 
of said act. This privilege was, no doubt, extended to*the importer by 
Congress because experience had shown that shipments of goods were 
frequently arriving from points remote from consulates or consular agen¬ 
cies, under circumstances that rendered it practically impossible for the 
importer to procure a certified invoice, or a formal invoice of any kind, 
before the arrival of the goods. 

From the passage of the act of June 22, 1874, to October, 1878, an 
entry by proforma invoice was treated, as to its liability to penal duty, 
in all respects the same as under the act of March 3, 1863, (section 2858, 
Eevised Statutes,) and precisely the same as though the entry had been 
made on a certified invoice. 

It does not seem to have been understood that the enlargement of the 
privilege of entering on pro forma invoice, or statement in the form of 
an invoice, relieved the importer from any of the other requirements 
or penalties bearing on the entry and appraisement of merchandise. 
It simply left it optional with him to make entry of his goods in the 
manner prescribed, or to allow them to be sent to the general-order 
warehouse. Under the opinion of the Attorney-General dated October 
4, 1878, however, and subsequent decisions by the Department based 
thereon, no penal duty has been exacted on entries by proforma invoices, 
when a bond has been taken for the production of a certified invoice, 
although the value found by the appraiser may have been more than 
10 per cent, in excess of such invoice or entered value. 

It is the opinion of all the prominent officials examined by us at this 
port, as will be seen by their statements submitted herewith, that the 
chief abuses growing out of pro forma invoices have their origin in 
this opinion of the Attorney-General and the subsequent decisions of 
the Department thereunder. 

It has been clearly shown, in the course of this investigation, that 
unscrupulous shippers and importers made haste to avail themselves of 
the loophole opened by that opinion, by abusing the privelege consid¬ 
erately extended by Congress, and through t heir ingenuity defrauding 
the revenue in the most shameless manner. 

The number proformas presented at this port during the year 1884 was 
nearly 30,000; of these, 7,266 covered goods valued at more than $100. 

For the purpose of making a careful analysis of the pro formas now 
being presented at this port under circumstances that should excite 
suspicion, we examined and tabulated all those received at the ap¬ 
praiser’s office from the 7th to the 13th ultimo, inclusive, and also called 
up all those amounting to over $100 received during the month of No- 

5 a 


66 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


vember, 1884. We find that for the six days in July there were 523 
such invoices, 165 covering amounts in excess of $100; of these 30 
covered free goods, 60 goods bearing a specific duty, and 75 goods bear¬ 
ing an ad valorem rate of duty. Many of these invoices covering goods 
bearing a high ad valorem rate of duty, such as silks, gloves, laces, arti¬ 
ficial flowers, feathers, brushes, woollens, &c., involved amounts vary¬ 
ing from $1,000 to $15,000. The proforma invoices or bills of these 
goods were in nearly every instance made on the bill heads of the foreign 
shipping-house, and contained a full description of the goojls, with all 
the particularity required on a certified invoice, and had evidently been 
forwarded by mail from the leading cities of Europe, where American 
consuls are stationed. In other words, these bills appeared to have been 
prepared by the foreign shipper in the same manner as a consular in¬ 
voice, and the neglect to have them properly certified appears to us to 
have been intentional. 

This conclusion is emphasized by the fact that certain importers, 
particularly consignees, are shown by the records of the custom-house 
to have been for several years habitual users of this form of invoice on 
goods bearing high ad valorem rates of duty, while other importers, 
purchasing or receiving the same class of goods from the same points of 
shipment, have uniformly made entry on certified invoices. 

It will readily be seen of what advantage a pro forma invoice may 
be, under the rulings of the Department, to a shipper who consigns his 
goods for sale in this country below their true market value. He can 
in this manner, without fear of a penal duty, make an experiment as 
to the value at which his goods will be passed by the appraiser, and, 
should the invoice value be advanced on appraisement, his consignee at 
this port can advise him of the fact so that the certified invoice can be 
made to correspond with the figures of the appraiser. 

Our examination of pro forma invoices for November, 1884, shows that 
441, covering goods exceeding $100 in value, were received during that 
month; of these, 120 covered free goods, 119 specific-duty goods, and 
202 ad valorem goods. These invoices showed a recurrence of the same 
names of importers and the same, indications as to the improper and 
fraudulent use of this form of entry as in the July invoices. 

We made also a careful examination of the bonds given at this port 
for thfi production of certified invoices from January 1 to July 1 of 
the present year. The number of bonds executed for this purpose dur¬ 
ing that time was 3,004, and, at the ratio found to exist between ad 
valorem and specific-duty goods, about 1,400 of these would cover im¬ 
portations of merchandise paying an ad valorem rate of duty. 

While houses of the highest standing in this city, such as H. B. Claflin 
& Co., Arnold, Constable & Co., Lord & Taylor, Bates, Beed & Cooley, 
and hundreds of others who purchase their goods in the open markets 
of Europe, have rarely been obliged to resort to the use of proforma in¬ 
voices, other houses, and chiefly those which receive goods on consign¬ 
ment, use them rather as a rule than an exception. To illustrate this 
we may say that during the first six months of the present year the 
following number of entries of goods valued above $100 have been made 
by some of these last-named houses on pro forma invoices: 


REPORT i 


THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


67 


Lenisolin & Co., arti;\ *p owers. 36 

Marx, Held & Co., an ' flowers. 22 

H. Bacharach, artificial >rs. 17 

Negroz, Portier, Gross 6c Co., silks. 19 

Auffmordt & Co., silks. 16 

Vietor, Achiles & Co., silks... 13 

Islin, Neeser & Co., silks. 27 

Mammelsdorf & Bro., laces. . 12 

Muser Brothers, laces. 15 

Loeb & Schoenfeld, embroideries. 16 

Guggenheim’s Sons, embroideries. 14 

L. Strauss & Sons, china and glass ware. 18 


Some of these invoices covered merchandise amounting to more than 
$18,000, and all of them were made out at the principal cities of Europe, 
where a certified invoice can easily be procured if desired. It is in¬ 
credible that regular importers, having correspondents at all these 
points of shipment, should so frequently be unable to produce a certified 
invoice through accident, and much light is thrown on the probable 
cause of the failure by the fact that the market value of all the classes 
of goods covered by these pro formas was under investigation by the 
appraiser or special agents at the time these entries were made. 

Undoubtedly much of the abuse resulting from the use of pro forma 
invoices is due to the careless and inefficient manner in which the act 
of June 22, 1874, has been administered by the officers charged with its 
execution at the custom-house. Sections 10 and 11 of that act provide 
for the examination under oath of the importer presenting such an in¬ 
voice, and authorize the collector or his deputy to require him to “ pro¬ 
duce any letter or paper in his possession or under his control which 
may assist the officers of the customs in ascertaining the dutiable value 
of the importation or any part thereof . 7 7 Such an examination properly 
conducted would in most cases determine whether the non-production 
of a certified invoice was due to accident or design. 

We regret to state that no such examination has ever been made at 
this port, so far as we can learn. Proforma invoices seem to have been 
taken as a matter of course and in the most perfunctory manner. The 
convenience of importers aifd the dispatch of business have been con¬ 
sidered of paramount importance to the interests of the revenue. We 
have seen several pro forma invoices where the application to make 
entry contained nothing but the date, printed matter, and signature, 
no reason being assigned for the non-production of a certified invoice as 
required by the regulations. 

The undervaluations and frauds successfully carried on under this 
form of entry have long been notorious, as will be seen from the state¬ 
ments of the customs officials herewith transmitted; and yet no serious 
effort has ever been made to check or control these abuses by subjecting 
even suspected importers to the examination provided for by law. 

We beg leave on this point to call attention to the statement made by 
Deputy Collector Bartram, in charge of the fifth, or entry, division of 
the custom-house, on pages 43 to 48 of the accompany enclosure. It is 
claimed by him that the force of deputy collectors (five in numbers) 
who administer oaths on entries and designate packages is not suf- 














68 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ficient to perform the other duties devolving upon them and at the 
same time properly investigate the reasons for the non-production of 
certified invoices. 

While our observation convinces us that there is some force in this 
claim, we are, nevertheless, of the opinion pro forma that invoices have 
heretofore been treated with reprehensible neglect by the deputies re¬ 
ceiving them. When it was found that such invoices could not be prop¬ 
erly attended to by these deputies, some other provision should have 
been made to carry out the requirements and purposes of the law. 

In our examination of the bonds for the production of certified in¬ 
voices we discovered that almost the only sureties whose names appear 
thereon are custom-house brokers, who are “habitually employed’ 7 by 
the various importers. This is in direct violation of article 1055 of the 
Regulations of 1884. 

Such brokers are also accepted as sureties on penal, warehouse, and 
other bonds at this port, and the aggregate amount for which some of 
them are liable on bonds of various kinds is simply enormous. On 
bonds to produce certified invoices alone some of them are sureties to 
the amount of $150,000 during the month of February of this year. 

When this departure from the regulations was called to the attention 
of the officers charged with the execution of bonds, it was claimed by 
them, first, that the Department had on several occasions authorized 
the practice at this port; second, that these brokers were scrupulously 
particular about the default of bonds bearing their signature, as it would 
injure them in their business; and, third, that it would be a hardship 
to compel importers to bring business men to the custom-house during 
the busy part of the day merely to sign as sureties. 

The facts are, however, that many of these bonds remain uncancelled 
at the time of their maturity, as will be seen by the statement of Mr. 
Rice, chief bond clerk, pages 71 to 75 of the testimony herewith sub¬ 
mitted. This officer states that there are from one hundred to two hun¬ 
dred of these uncancelled bonds sent to the district attorney annually 
for suit, but that, for some reason, no suit has ever been brought oil 
them. Mr. Rice entertains the opinion that these bonds have no validity 
under the law, and we apprehend (hat, in consequence of such an opinion, 
he is not sufficiently careful in respect to the financial responsibility of 
sureties or the proper execution of the b^nds. 

Many of the bonds examined by us were found to be defective and 
irregular. In some no penalty was expressed; in others the name of the 
surety in the body of the bond was different from the signature thereto; 
and in others the residence and address of the sureties were not stated 
at all, as required by article 1055 of the regulations; so that, even if 
the bond provided for by the regulations be a valid one in law, many 
of these would be worthless on account of informalities. Whether or 
not they can be enforced, it seems to us that so long as they are required 
by the regulations they should be taken in strict accordance therewith, 
and we have so advised the chief bond clerk. 

We learn on inquiry that during the year 1884 ninety-two of these 
defaulted bonds for the production of certified invoice were reported by 
the collector for suit, and that during the first seven months of the pres¬ 
ent year one hundred thirty-seven have been so reported. Assistant 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


G9 


District Attorney Hasbrouck, who has charge of such defaulted bonds, 
informs us that no suits have been instituted within his recollection to 
collect the penalties on such bonds, but that after their default has 
been officially reported by the collector, notices are sent to the princi¬ 
pal and sureties, and in many cases the certified invoice is then pro¬ 
duced or the bonds otherwise disposed of. Assistant District Attorney 
Clark informed us that 90 per cent, of the sureties on these bonds are 
custom-house brokers, and that 90 per cent, of these are wholly irre¬ 
sponsible. 

In order that the abuse which we find to exist at this port through 
entry on proforma invoices might be speedily corrected, we deemed it 
expedient to recommend to the collector that all such invoices be as¬ 
signed to a deputy collector, who should be located in a room apart 
from the hurry and confusion of the rotunda, where the examination of 
the importers as to the cause of the non-production of the certified in¬ 
voice could be properly made. He at once and heartily approved of 
the recommendation, and issued an order to carry it into effect. This 
action of the collector will tend to limit the number of such entries to 
the cases contemplated by the law, and will, to a great extent, prevent 
fraudulent and experimental entries on such invoices. 

We believe that such an examination of importers will disclose the 
fact that in many cases no satisfactory reason can be given for the non¬ 
production of a certified invoice, and that he w ill use a discretion that 
has never before been exercised at this port in accepting pro forma in¬ 
voices. While w r e believe that the new' practice adopted by the collector 
will do much towards limiting the number of entries on pro forma in¬ 
voices, w r e think that the evil cannot be entirely corrected by this means 
so long as such entries are held not to be subject to the additional du¬ 
ties prescribed by section 2900, Bevised Statutes, and we would there¬ 
fore respectfully recommend that this subject be again referred to the 
Attorney-General for his opinion as to the application of said section, 
in the light of the facts which have now' been disclosed. 

The commission, while not feeling warranted under their instructions 
in pursuing their investigation at the custom-house further than re¬ 
lated to the entry of merchandise on pro forma invoices, discovered 
that the officers with whom they w r ere brought in contact, with few ex¬ 
ceptions, entertain the opinion that this port cannot be subjected to the 
same law T s and regulations that are applicable to other ports, and, there¬ 
fore, many of the regulations are not carried into effect, the convenience 
of importers or their brokers being first considered by these officers. 

As an illustration of the careless manner in which business is dis¬ 
patched, we found, during our examination of the pro forma invoices, 
one covering dolls, toys, and decorated china, each in separate pack¬ 
ages, of which the only package sent to the appraiser’s store was the one 
containing dolls; so that the appraisement of the toys and decorated 
china was made wdthout any examination of these goods, and the invoice 
values were accepted and returned as the appraised value. 

Assistant Appraiser Stearns, when it was called to his attention, ex¬ 
pressed the opinion that the examiner was warranted under the law 
in making such return if the invoice value of the dolls was found cor¬ 
rect, as that would establish the honesty of the invoice. The incon- 


70 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


sistency and danger of such practice is apparent when it is remembered 
that dolls pay duty at 35 per cent, ad valorem, and decorated china at 
60 per cent. Different examiners pass the respective merchandise, and 
in this instance one examiner must have appraised the market value of 
the decorated china upon the statement of another that the invoice value 
of dolls was correct. In our opinion, such practice is in no case justi¬ 
fiable, as it is the duty of examiners to appraise merchandise from their 
expert knowledge, and not to pass upon the honesty of the importer. 

Deputy Collector Bartram, when his attention was called to the fact 
that only one package of the merchandise above referred to had been 
ordered to the appraiser’s store, stated that deputies had no time to 
properly examine invoices for the purpose of seeing whether they cov¬ 
ered more than one kind of goods. 

The irregularities that have come under our notice, and are herein 
reported, lead us to the belief that others of a more serious character 
may exist as the result of the haste and disregard of the regulations 
with which business is dispatched at this port. It seems clear to us 
that the interests of the revenue are constantly put in jeopardy by such 
methods, and that steps ought to be taken at once to correct these errors 
of practice. If the present force of deputy collectors and clerks is in¬ 
adequate for the proper enforcement of the laws and regulations, more 
should be appointed, for it is a false economy to allow the business of 
this great port to be conducted in so hasty and hazardous a manner. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servants, 

H. WHEELER COMBS, 

U. 8. General Appraiser, 

B. H. HINDS, 

C. H. LAPP, 

Special Agents. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. G. 


No. 4. 


Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York , October 12, 1885. 

Sir : We have the honor to report that on the 26th ultimo Appraiser 
McMullen called upon us and requested us to assist him in arriving at 
a basis of values for cotton embroideries and Oriental and Egyptian 
laces, since the result of various reappraisements at this port decided 
on expert testimony had been unsatisfactory to the appraising officers 
and had produced great discontent on the part of importers. 

It appears that in 1878 an investigation of this question was made by 
the board of general appraisers, with the sanction of the Department, 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


71 


and that an understanding was then arrived at to the effect that the 
only proper and equitable manner of determining the values of these 
goods was to take into consideration the cost of production and to add 
to such cost a manufacturer 7 s profit. Since it appeared that in the usual 
course of trade these goods were sold at St. Galle to this and other 
markets in the gray or unbleached condition, (the cost of bleaching, 
finishing, &c. , being borne by the purchaser,) it was decided at that time 
that the cost in the gray on the stitch basis should be adopted as the 
basis, and that a manufacturer’s profit of 10 per cent, should be added 
thereto, and that to this sum should be added the actual cost of bleach¬ 
ing, finishing, and putting up for shipment. 

This standard of valuation seems to have been tacitly adopted by the 
Department and appraising officers, but, so far as we can learn, it was 
never authoritatively promulgated by the Dei>artment. From 1878 
until May of the present year, this standard was followed at the princi¬ 
pal ports on goods purchased on the “stitch basis 77 or shipped by the 
manufacturers. The consul at St. Galle was directed to furnish to ap¬ 
praising officers, from time to time, the cost of stitching, and experts to 
count stitches were placed in the consul’s Office and in the offices of the 
appraisers. 

In May last complaints were made to a commission, then sitting at 
this port, by several of the largest and most reputable importing houses 
of this city, such as H. B. Claflin & Co., Mills & Gibb, and others, to 
the effect that certain manufacturers and shippers of these goods at St. 
Galle were enabled, under the prevailing system of ascertaining market 
values, to undersell them in the markets of this country. 

These merchants claimed that the 10 per cent, heretofore added to the 
cost of the goods in the gray was not a sufficient manufacturer’s profit, 
and insisted that another 10 per cent, ought to be added for that purpose. 

It was further claimed by them that the market value of these goods 
could be more accurately arrived at by comparison with similar goods 
purchased by themselves and others, without reference to the stitch 
basis, through commission houses in St. Galle. 

The testimony taken by that commission in May last is now before 
us, and has been carefully studied. 

A report embodying the facts and suggestions of these merchants was 
submitted to the Department by the commissjpn, and the appraiser, 
who had been consulted in the matter, at once gave orders for the ad¬ 
vance of 10 per cent, on all invoices of these goods shipped by the man¬ 
ufacturers, or invoiced on the stitch basis under the arrangement made 
in 1878. 

Appeals were taken from this action of the appraisers, and on reap¬ 
praisement the testimony of certain experts who had been dealing in 
these goods, without reference to the stitch count, was relied on to de¬ 
termine market values. 

After a considerable number of cases on reappraisement had been 
decided on such testimony, it was discovered by the appraising officers 
(including the general appraiser and the merchant appraiser) that uni¬ 
formity could not be secured by such methods; that the results were 
capricious, and that the testimony of experts was wholly unreliable. 
The importers whose invoices had been advanced complained that they 
had been unjustly treated by some of the experts, and that their busi¬ 
ness had been seriously injured. 

It was at this state of the case that the appraiser came before us and 


72 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


desired us to assist him in arriving at a more satisfactory basis of value. 
Having received the consent of the Department to investigate the sub¬ 
ject. we conferred with some of the leading and reliable importers of 
these goods. 

In order that a lull and lree expression of views might be had, it was 
decided by the importers with whom we had conferred that a meeting 
of the entire trade in this city ought to be called, so that the various 
conflicting interests should be represented. A call was therefore issued 
by Mr. John Gibb, of Mills & Gibb; Mr. Haager, of Albert, Haager & 
Waldberger; and Mr. Jacob Steiger, manufacturer, of Herisau, Switz¬ 
erland, for a meeting, to be held on the 30th ultimo, at the Manhattan 
Hotel, where both the purchasers of these goods through commission 
houses at St. Galle and the manufacturers and shippers might, if pos¬ 
sible, agree on a basis of valuation that should be at once equitable and 
satisfactory to the trade and just to the Government. 

At tills meeting, to which Appraiser McMullen, General Appraiser 
Brower, arid this commission were invited, were represented such houses 
as Arnold & Constable, H. B. Claflin & Co. . Mills & Gibb, Bates, Breed & 
Cooley, Teft, Weller & Co.. Muser Bros., Robert McDonald & Co., on 
the one side, and Einstein, Hirscli & Co., M. Guggenheim 7 s Sons, Loeb 
& Schoenfeld, Jacob Steiger, and Albert, Haager & Waldberger on the 
other, the representatives of some forty houses altogether being present. 
Mr. John Gibb, of Mills & Gibb, who had acted as merchant appraiser 
on a large number of reappraisements, and who had in most cases 
sustained the advances, made by the appraiser, presided at the meet¬ 
ing. Among the speakers were many of the same persons who had 
complained to the commission in May last about the fallacy of the stitch 
basis, and M ho had demanded either an addition to the manufacturer’s 
profit on the invoices or an ascertainment of values by expert testimony. 

Their views, however, on this point appeared to have undergone a de¬ 
cided change, for, without exception, they maintained at the meeting that 
expert testimony was utterly unreliable , and that the only proper method 
of arriving at values was by the stitch basis. A number of resolutions 
were introduced to this effect, and, after discussion, passed unanimously, 
and a. committee of five merchants was appointed to confer with the ap¬ 
praiser and this commi^ion on the objects had in view and the action 
taken by the meeting. 

That committee appeared before the appraiser and the commission 
on the 5tli instant, and reported the resolutions unanimously adopted 
by the meeting, which are in substance (with one modification made 
by the committee) as follows: 

1. The adoption of the stitch basis as the method of determining values. 

2. An addition of 10 per cent, for manufacturer’s profit on tko finished 
yoods, including the cost of bleaching, finishing, and putting up in car¬ 
tons for shipment. 

3. The valuation of the goods, according to the cost of stitching at 
St. Galle on the day of shipment; as ascertained and reported by the 
consul. 

4. The employment by the consul of an expert to verify the stitch 
count, so far as practicable, and the employment of additional experts 
at this and other ports for a like purpose. 

5. The selection by the consul of seven of the largest and most reliable 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 73 

shippers of these goods to this market as a committee to fdvise and in¬ 
form him as to the prevailing cost of stitching. 

The standard of valuation recommended by the meeting of importers, 
viz., the cost of the finished product estimated on the stitch basis, with 
10 per cent, for manufacturer’s profit, has been adopted by the ap¬ 
praiser, and the rule is now being applied to all invoices, except such 
as cover fancy designs, purchased without reference to stitch count and 
at higher values t han would result from the stitch basis. 

It will be observed that in two important particulars the rule sug¬ 
gested by the importers and adopted by the appraiser will work to the 
advantage of the Government. 

First. The 10 per cent, manufacturer’s profit will hereafter be ap¬ 
plied to the cost of the goods bleached, finished, and put up for ship¬ 
ment ; whereas, under the arrangement made in 1878, the addition of 10 
per cent, for profit was made only on the cost of the goods in the gray. 
The cost of bleaching, finishing, and putting up will average in the 
common qualities, which constitute the great bulk of the trade with this 
country, nearly 15 per cent., and on the more costly goods about 8 per 
cent., or an average of more than 12-1 per cent. 

Second. The rule now in force requires that the values shall be esti¬ 
mated on the basis of the cost of the stitching on the day of shipment. 
Heretofore, it has been the practice to invoice these goods on the basis 
of the price actually paid for stitching; and as the goods were frequently 
manufactured during the dull season, when the cost of' stitching was 
sometimes as low as 22 centimes per 100 stitches, and shipped during 
the busy season, when the stitch price had advanced to from 36 to 38 
centimes, the Government lost a large amount of revenue that will be 
collected under the present system. 

We estimate that the increased valuation resulting from these two 
modifications of the old standard will result in materially advancing 
the average dutiable values of these goods over the invoices of former 
years. 

The value of cotton embroideries, Oriental and Egyptian laces, an¬ 
nually imported into this country is, in round numbers, $8,000,000. 

The application of the 10 per cent, profit to the cost of bleaching, 
finishing, and putting up will advance the average invoice values at 
least 11 per cent., and on th$ quantity imported this will amount to an 
increased value of $100,000, on which the increased duty, at 40 per cent, 
ad valorem, will be $40,000. We believe that the increased duties 
resulting from the adoption of the stitch cost on the day of shipment 
will still further largely increase the revenue derived from this 
commodity. 

If such an increase can be made to the revenue of the country, with the 
consent and approbation of all parties concerned, simply by the adop¬ 
tion of a basis of values that shall beat once uniform and intelligible to 
all. it is certainly a most desirable consummation. 

The testimony taken by the commission in May last amply justified 
them in reporting as they did, and their action and report seemed to 
leave no room for doubt in the mind of the appraiser as to the propriety 
of advancing the invoices of these goods as already stated; and though 
such action may for a time have been regarded as an injustice by im¬ 
porters, and resulted in a temporary demoralization of the trade, the 
controversy has, nevertheless, been now happily settled by the adop- 


74 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


tion by the appraiser of a basis of values which is satisfactory to 
all the conflicting interests of trade, and advantageous to the Govern¬ 
ment. 

We respectfully recommend that the consul at St. Galle be instructed 
to avail himself of the advice and assistance of the committee of seven 
merchants and manufacturers in the ascertainment of the correct cost of 
stitching, as recommended by the meeting of importers, and set forth by 
the chairman, Mr. John Gibb, in a communication to the Department 
under date of the 5th instant. 

Yery respectfully, your obedient servants, 

H. WHEELED COMBS, 

General Appraiser. 

B. H. HINDS, 

C. H. LAPP, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 1). C. 


INVESTIGATIONS INTO REAPPRAISEMENTS AT 

NEW YORK. 


No. 1. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , 1). C., March 16, 1885. 

Gentlemen : Complaints have been made to the Department that 
in the selection of merchant appraisers for the reappraisement of im¬ 
ported goods domestic manufacturers of similar articles are usually 
appointed, and necessarily have an interest in advancing the values of 
goods in dispute beyond their true foreign market value. It is also 
suggested that-jobbers engaged in selling bbth domestic and imported 
merchandise would be the most suitable persons to act as merchant 
appraisers. 

I desire you to thoroughly examine into the matter, and submit a 
report thereon as soon as practicable, with such views and recommen¬ 
dations as you may deem advisable. 

Yery respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Messrs. Geo. C. Tichenor, A. K. Tingle, O. L. Spaulding, 

Special Agents ? New York City. 




HEP (JET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 75 
No. 2. 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collector's Office, March 30, 1885. 

Sir: We have duly investigated tlie subject of the appoinjment of 
merchant appraisers at this port as required by Department instruc¬ 
tions of the 16th instant, and have the honor to report as follows: 

It is understood that the complaints alluded to in said instructions, 
“that in the selection of merchant appraisers for the reappraisement 
of imported goods domestic manufacturers of similar articles are usually 
appointed,” refer chiefly to the reappraisement of silk goods, which 
have been the subject of a large proportion of reappraisements at this 
port. 

An examination of the records shows that domestic manufacturers 
have not been 4 4 usually appointed ’' in such cases. Such appointments 
have, however, been more frequent during the past three months than 
formerly. During that time one hundred and seventy-five invoices 
were reappraised, one hundred and fifty being of silk goods. Domestic 
manufacturers acted as merchant appraisers in thirty-two of these cases. 
During the previous three months there were one hundred and two 
appeals, upon which only four domestic manufacturers were called to 
act. 

We have obtained the views of merchants representing the three 
classes of business houses, members of which, it is understood, are eli¬ 
gible to appointment as merchant appraisers: 

1st. Firms engaged in the importing and jobbing trade, who buy 
consigned goods in this market, but make no entries of consigned goods 
at the custom-house. 

2d. Firms engaged in the consignment trade exclusively, those who 
buy no goods, but . act as agents for foreign manufacturers. 

3d. Merchants interested in domestic manufactures. 

We have also consulted the collector, Deputy Collector Bartram, the 
general appraiser, the appraiser, and Assistant Appraiser Kent. 

The views expressed by all of these gentlemen are herewith submit¬ 
ted. It will be observed that there is a diversity of opinion among the 
merchants, but that the officials substantially agree that it would be 
inexpedient to confine these appointments to jobbers, as suggested, and 
that the selection of merchant appraisers from all classes, as has been 
the practice, should be continued. 

If the appointments should be confined to one class, the others, 
equally interested in the results of reappraisements, might have just 
cause of complaint. 

Appeals are almost exclusively limited to invoices of consigned goods. 
Nine-tenths of silks imported are consigned at invoice prices arbitra¬ 
rily fixed by the consignors, without reference, in many cases, to actual 
values. The commission merchant who makes entry as consignee is 
expected to, and does, exert all his ability and influence with the ap¬ 
praising officers to pass the invoices at the lowest possible values. He 
frequently adds a small percentage upon entry, in order that there may 
be a margin for further advance of value by the appraisers without 
reaching the 10 per cent, limit, which involves additional duties or 
penalties. If, after all these efforts, and notwithstanding the additions 
to the invoice value upon entry, the appraiser should advance the in¬ 
voice further to the extent of 10 per cent, or more, the commission 


76 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


merchant is expected by liis foreign principal to appeal and make 
every effort on the reappraisement to obtain a reduction of the ap¬ 
praiser’s valuation below the penalty line. Hence the great import¬ 
ance of obtaining competent and fair-minded merchants to reappraise 
the goods, in conjunction with the general appraiser, as provided by 
law. 

The proposition to confine these appointments to jobbers, and to ex¬ 
clude from selection members of houses receiving consigned goods, as 
well as those of firms interested in American manufactures, appears 
upon its face to be a fair one; but it is open to objection. It is claimed 
that such an arrangement would operate to the advantage or detriment 
of the importer according to the business relations of the jobber with 
the importing house whose goods are under reappraisement. Besides, 
merchants of this class are not usually acquainted with the foreign 
market value of the larger proportion of goods usually the subjects of 
reappraisement. Their information of such value is limited, for the 
reason that they make few, if any, purchases abroad of goods consigned 
to this country for sale. They are dependent chiefly for such informa¬ 
tion upon the commission-houses with whom they have business rela¬ 
tions, and are liable to be influenced in their action by their feelings 
towards the importer. 

It is a fact to be deprecated that other considerations than the ascer¬ 
tainment of the true value of the merchandise under consideration have 
so much to do with reappraisements; but it cannot be disputed that 
the consequences of an advance of 10 per cent, or more have a certain 
weight, in most cases, with the reappraising board, and that the ap¬ 
peals of the importer not to pass the line and put him to a penalty have 
great influence in the final decision. * Cases have occurred where, after 
the reappraisement has been made and reported, the invoice has been 
recalled and the appraisement reduced, because it was found that the 
advance made involved a penalty, and the appraising board had no 
intention of working such a result. 

There would seem to be no question that members of consignment 
firms whose invoices are frequently advanced, and who often appear 
as appellants, should be excluded from selection as merchant ap¬ 
praisers. Yet such appointments are very frequent. In at least fifty 
cases during the last three months of 1884 members of such houses 
were selected to reappraise invoices of goods of the same class as those of 
their own importation, arid in many instances their firms had current 
invoices under reappraisement. As illustrating this, a list of some of 
the firms members of which served as merchant appraisers during a 
portion of the period mentioned is herewith enclosed, (marked “ A,”) 
showing the number of times such persons acted as merchant appraisers, 
the number of their own invoices reappraised, and of their invoices 
advanced by the appraiser upon which appeals were not taken. 

In regard to the propriety of selecting domestic manufacturers, ref¬ 
erence is made to the testimony of the collector, the appraiser, the 
general appraiser, and Assistant Appraiser Kent. 

These gentlemen concur in the view that such selections are condu¬ 
cive to the public interests. Especially is this true, in our opinion, 
since the enactment of the ninth section of the tariff act of March 3, 
1883. Proof of market value of consigned goods is not easily obtained, 
and in such cases where resort is had to the cost of production as pro¬ 
vided by s lid section domestic manufacturers are best qualified to act, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


< ( 


They know the value of materials, and keep themselves informed as to 
the price of foreign labor. It is claimed that, owing to their interest 
in advancing the valuation of foreign goods competing with their own 
productions, they cannot do justice to the importers. No specific case 
of such injustice has been cited, nor is it believed that such a case has 
occurred. On the contrary, many of the importers as well as appraisers 
have commended the fairness and moderation of the gentlemen inter¬ 
ested in domestic manufactures who have been generally selected to 
act as merchant appraisers. Such appointments, although infrequent 
in past years, have the sanction of long usage, and should not, in our 
opinion, be discontinued. If they are discreet and experienced mer¬ 
chants, familiar with the character and value of the merchandise, within 
the terms of section 2930 of the Eevised Statutes they cannot be legally 
excluded from appointment because of their interest in domestic con¬ 
cerns. An order to exclude them, as suggested, would deprive the Gov¬ 
ernment of a valuable aid in determining dutiable values, and would 
be an abridgment of the discretionary authority conferred by law upon 
the collector. 

The present practice of selecting merchant appraisers from all classes 
of merchants having the requisite qualifications appears to have derived 
its authority from a circular of Secretary Eobert J. Walker, dated 
December 26, 1848, from which we quote: “The selection of merchant 
appraisers should not be confined exclusively t > those connected with 
foreign imports, but, when the requisite knowledge exists, should be 
extended so as to embrace domestic manufacturers and producers and 
other citizens acting as merchants, although not dealing in foreign 
merchandise. ” 

Under the present regulations, the appraiser is required to send with 
each appeal the names of five firms, members of which would be suit¬ 
able for appointment, for the information of the collector. Owing to 
the frequency, not to say regularity, with which the same names are 
sent in by the appraiser, the collector is often embarrassed in making 
selections, especially when the names submitted are often those of firms 
whose invoices are constantly advanced. We believe a better plan 
would be to require the appraiser to furnish the collector permanent 
lists of all firms importing the various classes of merchandise, such lists 
to be from time to time revised and corrected, and we recommend that 
instructions be given to that effect. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. 0. TICHENOE, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


78 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 3. 

Testimony Taken Concerning the Selection of Merchant Appraisers. 

New York, March 27, 1885. 

Deputy Collector N. B. Bartram called. 

By Mr. Tichenor : 

Q. Will you please outline your particular duties as deputy col- 
colector ?—A. I am deputy collector of tlie fifth division, in charge of 
entry of merchandise, and "this division has control of the entry of mer¬ 
chandise for consumption and warehouse. I grant all tree permits, and 
up to about the middle of January it was my duty to appoint merchant 
appraisers, and for four years prior to the 1st of January. The liquida¬ 
tion bureau forms part of my division. 

Q. Please state the methods pursued or the system in vogue in the 
selection of merchant appraisers during the time that you made the 
selections.—A. The practice in the appointment of merchant appraisers 
is for the appraiser to indorse on the back of the appeal the names of 
five merchants whom he considers suitable parties to act. I generally 
selected one of those men. I never recollect deviating from that course 
more than once or twice, or three times perhaps. It is not obligatory 
upon the collector to select one of those names, but the practice has been 
to do so. This method is st rictly in accordance with the regulations. 

Q. In the cases where you have deviated from this rule, was that on 
account of any particular objection of any of the parties?—A. No; those 
cases were purely accidental. I never deviated from those names for 
any particular cause that I can recollect. I don’t know but I did once 
appoint a man merchant appraiser in consequence of having received 
protests against all the names that were suggested by the appraiser. It 
has been the habit of the merchants, when they would call a reappraise¬ 
ment where there was a contest going on, to lodge a protest with the 
collector against the appointment of certain named merchants to act in 
their case, and my instructions from the collector in such cases as that 
were not to appoint those men, but to go around them and select some¬ 
body else. 

Q. Would these protests be filed against particular merchants, or 
against any certain class of merchants?—A. They were specific, giving 
names of the persons protested in each case. I never received a general 
protest, nor I never received a protest after a merchant appraiser had 
been appointed. I always insisted upon their making their protests. 
I merely said when they would come down, or I would send up the ap- 
jrnal with the names to be indorsed. They would say, “I wish you 
wouldn’t appoint So-and-so.” I said, “If you want to protest against 
any parties, put your protest in writing.” I never accepted a general 
protest from any merchant. 

Q. Were these protests made against the personal character of the 
merchants, or on account of their particular interest?—A. These pro¬ 
tests were almost invariably by importers against domestic manufact¬ 
urers. They cited in them, “We believe that these parties’ business 
interests are so opposed to our own, they being rivals, that we do not 
consider them capable of acting in an unbiased manner in this case.” 
That was the gist of the protest. 

Q. As I understand it, the appeals to merchant appraisements are, as 
a rule, made by what are known as “consignment houses.” Is not this 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


79 


true?—A. Yes; I think the bulk of the reappraisements are from the 
houses that receive the consigned goods. There is one thing I might 
say has suggested itself to me, and that was the repetition from the ap¬ 
praisers of the same old names. You would infer that there were only 
four or five qualified merchants in the city of Yew York, from the way 
they sent down names for merchant appraisers. All that is necessary 
is to go and get the appeals and look them over for yourself, and you 
will see the class of names that come down continually. 

Q. In other words, the same identical persons keep coming right 
along?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In view of your experience, what is your opinion as to the class 
of merchants, having in view those that received goods by consignment 
and those generally known as merchants connected with domestic man¬ 
ufactures, and the other merchants or jobbers in foreign goods, as to 
which would be the best qualified to act justly and fairly as merchant 
appraisers?—A. Well, this matter of merchant appraisements—of course 
I have never considered it any of my particular business—but it seems 
to me that they have drifted out of the proper manner of making ap¬ 
praisements, and that they have turned it into a judicial proceeding, 
whereas the law originally intended and it does provide now for simply 
a reappraisement by a merchant expert. They have counsel appear, 
and various other paraphernalia of courts, instead of acting as experts; 
and I know that, for instance, a gentleman told me that he had a mer¬ 
chant appraisement called there, and that there was half a dozen people 
in the room, and he protested against any one being present except the 
witness 1 hat was under examination. They cleared the room, and when 
they came to call for the other witnesses there was not one of them 
there; they had all gone away, and he said their sole object in being 
there was to learn something of this man’s business, and when they 
found they were blocked in that, they found they had no further in¬ 
terest. 

Q. Then your understanding is that they have really drifted away 
from the intention of a reappraisement, reappraising merchandise as 
experts into a judicial proceeding?—A. Yes, sir; that is the way I 
understand it. I have never been present at a reappraisement, but 
everybody pours their complaints into my ear. 

Q. I observe, in looking over the names of these parties who have 
been frequently acting as merchant appraisers, (having been nominated 
by the appraiser to you to be selected from,) that they are the same 
men over and over again, and that their invoices have been frequently 
advanced by the appraiser. In other words, they are known as under¬ 
valuing houses themselves ?—A. Yes. You mean to‘say that the par¬ 
ties whom the appraiser has nominated are men whose invoices have 
been frequently advanced. 

Q. What is your judgment as to the propriety of selecting merchant 
appraisers from firms whose invoices are being constantly advanced ?— 
A. I do not think that merchants, whose goods are habitually under¬ 
valued, should be appointed as merchant appraisers, but at the same 
time I do not consider that the fact that a merchant’s invoices are sub¬ 
jected to a small advance, less than 10 per cent., is proof positive that 
the invoices are undervalued. The merchant is in dread of the ap¬ 
praiser’s office, and rather than take the chances of delay, which is 
death to his business, he accepts the small advance. They took pains 
to impress upon me when I first assumed these duties that the man that 


80 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


they put down first on the list was the man that I was to appoint—that 
was the one they would prefer. Asa consequence I generally avoided 
them, because I didn’t think it was fair to put up a job on the importer 
on the part of the Government official. The Government has got the 
best of it in having two officials against one importer, and it is a proper 
thing that the merchant should be as nearly fair as they could be, but 
if they name the merchant I don’t see but that the party whose invoice 
is in dispute is pretty well bound up. I can’t say that I ever received 
that directly from any official—I don’t want to be so understood— 
directly from any appraiser or any official; but that was the under¬ 
standing, and you will find that it was the understanding, and had 
been for a long while, that the first-named person was the favorite with 
the appraiser’s office. 

Q. What would be your judgment in doing away with this regulation 
of the appraiser sending the names and allowing the collector to select 
on his own judgment without this advice from the appraiser ?—A. I do 
not know that I would suggest any different arrangement of the regula¬ 
tions to cover that at present, although I would suggest that there be a 
little greater variety in respect to the names submitted for merchant 
appraisers. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. Would, in your opinion, it be a solution of this difficulty if the 
appraisers were required to report to the collector a list each month of 
the firms doing business in the different classes of importations from 
which the collector could make selections of merchant appraisers in 
lieu of the present pactice of sending in a list of five names as required 
by the regulations?—A. I think that plan would be a great improve¬ 
ment on the present one of furnishing five names on each appeal. 

Q. Has your attention been called in a general way to the firms whose 
invoices were advanced?—A. No; that is a thing I have never paid 
much attention to. It was simply my duty to order the liquidation as 
advanced by the appraiser, and to take penalty if it was ovt r the pen¬ 
alty line, and that thing had never attracted my attention particularly. 
It goes into Ester brook’s bureau. 

Q. You haven’t taken any personal cognizance of these maters relat¬ 
ing to advanced invoices, then?—A. I have noticed the invoices more 
since this investigation took place and my attention was called to it. 
Then, of course, I scrutinized them more than usual. I would take 
notice of the raise and the result of the merchant appraisement, but be¬ 
fore that they merely passed through my hand for a check. One thing 
has attracted my attention during the last three months, and that is 
that silk invoices that have been largely advanced by the appraiser, 
from 20 per cent, up, in a large majority of cases upon reappraisemeht 
have been reduced below the penalty line. 

In regard to jobbers acting as merchant appraisers, I think it would 
be unsatisfactory in its result, as the jobber who purchases from the 
importer would be placed in a position from which he could ascertain 
the exact cost to the importer of the goods sold to him, the jobber. 


REPORT OF TTtE SECRETARY OF TttE TREASURY. 


81 


James M. Constable, of the firm of Arnold, Constable & Co., called. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. What is your opinion as to the propriety of appointing jobbers 
exclusively, who do not import merchandise, as merchant appraisers 
at this port?—A. I think that the jobbers would be incompetent to act 
in that capacity, and that they couid not possibly give such attention to 
custom-house business, for they have not the time to devote to it. There 
are a very limited number of importers that own their own goods. I 
suppose we buy a larger amount of goods than any house in the country 
who own their imported goods. 

Q. How many houses, besides your firm, are there who actually im¬ 
port goods to this port on their own account?—A. Claflin, Jaffray, 
Dunham, Buckley & Co., Bates, Reed & Cooley, Lord & Taylor—well, 
there are a few others who import; Johnson, Stern, and Altman import 
a few. We are overrun here with manufacturers’ agents from abroad, 
who come here and undertake to deliver goods, duty paid, at prices in 
dollars and cents. 

Q. The firms you have named are importers of dry-goods, are they 
not?—A. Yes, importers of dry-goods. 

Q. Does your firm import many silks?—A. Yes, largely. 

Q. Standard goods?—A. Well, we import—of course we consider all 
silks standard. We send a man to Europe twice a year and buy a large 
stock of goods. 

Q. The class of goods he buys, are they always delivered to your 
house direct—that is, do you always invoice them in francs?—A. We 
have our own house in Lyons, and we do all through that house. 

Q. What proportion of the silks that you sell do you import?— 

, A. That is almost impossible for me to answer. Some seasons it may 
be almost everything; it depends upon the season; you couldn’t tell. 
If we have a very brisk time, we are buying in the market; in fact we 
are always in the market buying things under price, and sometimes full 
price. 

By Mr. Tichenor : 

Q. What proportion of merchandise imported at this port is imported 
regularly by legitimate importers ?—A. Well, I coiildn’t give any opinion 
on it; I think probably nine-tenths of the goods imported here are con¬ 
signed goods. This is my opinion simply. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. As to the methods of reappraisements, have you anything to say 
on that?—A. I have not. I don’t know that the present mode can be 
improved to my knowledge. These gentlemen, I believe a majority of 
them, study to get at the value as well as they possibly can; but as to 
getting at it, you know it is utterly out of the question. 

Q. As to the methods of reappraisements you have had a great deal 
of experience; do you think that system could be improved?—A. I 
don’t know how. 

Q. For example, do you think it is a proper practice to allow the 
importers and witnesses who are called to sustain invoice prices to be 
present in the room, and thus obtain information concerning their rival’s 
invoices?—A. I don’t know how that is to be avoided, I am sure. You 
have but one room for the business, and the witnesses are summoned 

6 A 


82 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. 


there for a certain time, and there they are, and they naturally will 
confer with one another. I presume the witnesses who are summoned 
deal in these goods* This is only my opinion. 

By Mr. TichenoR : 

Q. To what cause do you attribute the decline in the legitimate im¬ 
portations at this port?—A. I have been in the business forty-three 
years. In former years this under-invoicing was hardly known. In 
the first place, the duties were from about 15 to 25 per cent., and every¬ 
thing was on a smaller scale. There was not the incentive to cheat as 
there is now. I say that this high tariff brings about this incentive to 
undervalue. If duty is 20 per cent., and suppose it is under-invoiced 
25 per cent., the loss in duty is only 5 per cent., and Arnold, Constable 
& Co. could stand it better, because they know the market better than 
most importers know it; therefore, we could stand 5 per cent, when we 
couldn’t stand 15. 

Q. Then, I understand you to say that the decline in the legitimate 
importing trade has resulted from undervaluation by consignment on 
account of foreign owners?—A. Yes, sir; and growing out of this high 
tariff. Before the war, in 1861, this undervaluation was wholly un¬ 
known. Now there is not an American house importing that is not a 
jobber or retailer. We must either cheat or retire from the strict busi¬ 
ness of importation. 

Q. What remedies would you suggest for this condition of affairs?— 
A. Well, as I said before, there are only two: One is a lower tariff and 
specific duties, instead of ad valorem duties. I advocate the two com¬ 
bined in moderate, say 10 per cent, ad valorem, and specific afterwards. 
In some goods purely specific duties are impossible. 


James Mo Vick ar, of E. S. Jaffray & Co., called. 

By Mr. Tichenor : 

Q. Please state whether, in your opinion, from your experience as 
a mercha - appraiser and your knowledge of the course of proceeding 
there, that system may be improved or not to the advantage of the 
Government and all parties concerned.—A. The present method of 
having several cases heard at one time could be improved by having 
one at a time. 

Q. What is your judgment in regard to the proposition of appoint¬ 
ing jobbers who are neither importers nor interested in American 
manufactures as merchant appraisers?—A. I think the present practice 
of appointing merchant appraisers from all classes of merchants is 
about as good for the Government and for the importer as could be 
devised. I don’t see anything wrong in the mode of procedure in that 
particular. I think the case may come up where very often the 
American manufacturer is better than an importer, and vice versa. 
So many things enter into this question. You cannot make an asser¬ 
tion like that, that a jobber is the only man to act as merchant ap¬ 
praiser, or an importer either. * 

Q. From what you have seen as to the course of American manu¬ 
facturers called as merchant appraisers, do they, in your opinion make 
fair appraisements?—A. Of course I don’t see the merchant appraisers’ 
results outside of my own. I can only hear what they say. Of course 


REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 8?> 

I of my own knowledge couldn’t tell how near they strike it; but my 
opinion of the American manufacturers that I have met over there, 
they are a fair body of men, and I don’t see that it would be to the 
interest of the Government to cut off the American manufacturers or 
the jobbers in selecting merchant appraisers. 

Q. Would it, in your judgment, be practicable, and, if so, advisable, 
to limit the selection of merchant appraisers to strictly legitimate im¬ 
porting—that is, houses importing their own goods, purchased abroad 
on their own account, and jobbing houses at this port?—A. It might 
be practicable, but it would not be advisable. 


Mr. John Gibb, of the firm of Mills & Gibb, called. 

By Mr. Tichenor : 

Q. Inviting your attention to the letter from the Secretary of the 
Treasury which I have just read to you, will you please state whether 
you deem it practicable, and, if so, advisable, to limit the selection of 
merchant appraisers to legitimate importing houses—that is houses 
buying goods abroad and importing them regularly on their own ac¬ 
count, and to jobbers of such merchandise at this port?—A. I should 
think it advisable. No doubt about that. As to the practicability of it, 
I am not prepared to speak. If it was generally known that the gen¬ 
tlemen such as alluded to in this question were to be merchant apprais¬ 
ers in all cases, there would be less undervaluing done than at present, 
and there would be fewer cases of reappraisement. If this rule obtain, 
it would go a long way towards correcting this evil. 

Q. From your experience as importer and merchant appraiser, what 
is your judgment as to the advisability of excluding from selection as 
merchant appraisers domestic manufacturers as well as firms whose 
invoices are quite frequently advanced?—A. I think it Would be de¬ 
cidedly better if the merchant appraisers were taken from importers 
who buy their goods abroad and have no consignments. 


William H. De Forest, agent for foreign manufacturers, called. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. It has been proposed that the appointment of merchant appraisers 
shall be confined to jobbers, and that merchants receiving goods on con¬ 
signment and American manufacturers shall be excluded from such 
appointment. Please state your views upon that proposition.—A. In 
the first place, American manufacturers should be excluded, for the 
reason that they are prejudiced, being entirely antagonistic to the im¬ 
porting interest. The jobber should be excluded, for the reason that he 
would show preference with the importer with whom he deals, and 
would be prejudiced against the importer with whom, for any reason, 
he cannot deal. And for another reason, that the jobbers are so few 
that the position of merchant appraiser would devolve on the juniors, 
who are really not competent, in many cases, to act as merchant ap¬ 
praisers. 

Q. Please state from what class of merchants, in your opinion, mer¬ 
chant appraisers should be selected.—A. I think it would be better, if 


84 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


it were possible, that a merchant appraiser should be selected from an 
importer of other goods or fabrics than those to be reappraised, and who 
is accustomed to the usages of trade in foreign countries. 

Q. Have you any suggestions as to improvements in the methods of 
reappraisement as now pursued 1 ?—A. I prefer not to answer that ques¬ 
tion just now without further reflection. 

Q. Do you think it a proper thing to appoint as merchant appraisers 
importers whose goods are constantly advanced and under reappraise- 
ment?—A. It does not seem fair and just to the Government to do that, 
but at the same time it is almost impossible for the Government to get 
other merchant appraisers, in view of the enormous number of reap¬ 
praisements we are having. 

Q. What, in your opinion, would be the remedy to stop undervalua¬ 
tions?—A. To correct the mode of reappraisement to a fair and just 
way, to reduce the rate of duty to 35 per cent., and when it is found 
goods are undervalued 10 per cent, the goods shall be confiscated to 
the Government. 


Saturday, March 28, 1885. 

Andrew J. Perry, general appraiser, port of New York, called. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. Please state your views as to the advisability of appointing domes¬ 
tic manufacturers as merchant appraisers, having in view the proper 
ascertainment of the dutiable value of the merchandise.—A. My ex¬ 
perience leads me to the conclusion that domestic manufacturers have 
been valuable aids in determining dutiable value of certain kinds of 
merchandise, mostly woven fabrics of silk or silk and cotton. They 
are very infrequently selected to serve as merchant appraisers. In one 
hundred and two reappraisements in the three months ending Decem¬ 
ber 31, 1884, but four American manufacturers acted as merchant 
appraisers. During January, February, and March, down to the pres¬ 
ent day, there have been one hundred and seventy-five reappraisements, 
and from this the number of domestic manufacturers acting was thirty- 
two. When they are so selected and serve, as they always do, I have 
found in them very considerable aid from their intelligence on the 
general subject of the manufacture of goods and all the elements of 
manufacture, as well as their skill and knowledge in determining the 
quality of the goods and the differences in qualities, and have found 
them to be almost if not altogether fair-minded, painstaking, and care¬ 
ful men in the discharge of their duty. I should have no hesitation 
in recommending, were I called upon to make any recommendation, 
that they be selected with more frequency than they have been hereto¬ 
fore. 

Q. It has been, suggested that the appointment of merchant ap¬ 
praisers shall be confined to jobbers or hierchants who neither import 
or are interested in American manufactures. What, in your opinion, 
would be the advisability of such a rule as that?—A. I think the ten¬ 
dency would be detrimental to the public service. I don’t see how it 
could be otherwise. The importers, so called, of this class of mer¬ 
chandise are largely mere receivers of goods, and not purchasers. 
There are a very few purchasers of goods in foreign markets now doing 
business in New York city, and foreign market value is one of the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


85 


most difficult things to ascertain from such witnesses as are available 
in this city, from the fact that there are very few who make purchases 
in the foreign markets. Where it is possible to ascertain the cost of 
manufacture, the domestic manufacturer, or any one having a knowl¬ 
edge of domestic manufactures, can furnish the most reliable intelli¬ 
gence that we can get, except on the question of the value of foreign 
labor. In that respect it is claimed, on the part of importers, that the 
domestic manufacturer is at a disadvantage, and necessarily can know 
very little about it, although it is claimed on the part of some of the 
domestic manufacturers that they are familiar enough with it to ap¬ 
proximate this element of cost in any particular fabric of silk or cot¬ 
ton, and I have no doubt myself that they can come very near it from 
such examinations as I have made of such witnesses under oath. But 
the domestic manufacturer is, from the nature of his business, quite as 
ignorant of the foreign market value, and perhaps a little more so, 
than the receiver or so-called importer of such merchandise, the differ¬ 
ence being that he is in more frequent communication with the handlers 
of such goods in foreign markets than the other. 

Q. In your opinion, should members of firms whose invoices are 
frequently before you for reappraisement be appointed as merchant 
appraisers ?—A. My opinion is that if practicable to have other per¬ 
sons appointed to discharge the duties of merchant appraisers, it 
would be far better that they should be so appointed, but I fear that 
under the existing rules in practice with respect to the methods of 
selecting the merchant appraiser it would be found very inconvenient, 
if not impossible, to select merchant appraisers who would answer the 
statutory definition of a merchant appraiser. 

Q. Is it not a fact that the members of firms usually appointed are 
not themselves experts in the goods which they are called upon to ex¬ 
amine, but depend almost entirely upon testimony adduced in each 
case?— a. No. I think it is the fact, and very generally so, too, that 
the merchant appraiser is familiar with the goods and familiar with 
their qualities, shades, and differences of qualities, but may not be so 
familiar with the market value as some one in his employ and as some 
other firm or firms or dealers in the goods. 


Mr. B. Richardson, of B. Richardson & Sons, called. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. Mr. Richardson, the question has been presented to us for inquiry 
and report as to the advisability of excluding domestic manufacturers 
from serving as merchant appraisers, and of limiting the selection of 
such merchant appraisers to jobbers engaged in selling both domestic 
and imported merchandise. Please give us your views upon this sub¬ 
ject, based upon your experience as a merchant and merchant ap¬ 
praiser.—A. I have served frequently as a merchant appraiser, and 
am practically acquainted with the points at issue. I was one of the 
original incorporators of the Silk Association of America, and have 
been chairman of the committee on revenue laws for the last fifteen 
years, and have been engaged in the silk business here for thirty years. 
As a rule, the testimony which is presented before merchant appraisers 
by importers of consigned goods has been hearsay and opinion. For 


86 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


instance, A would testify for B tliis week, and B would testify for A 
next week. I have seen them quote prices within half a centime of 
each other. I should say the jobbers have no experience either way; 
they have no knowledge of the foreign markets and of the goods or of 
the cost of production, according to the ninth section of the present 
tariff law. There are many business reasons why jobbers, apart from 
their lack of acquaintance, should not be put on as merchant appraisers. 
I know a case of reappraisement where the merchant appraiser ap¬ 
pointed was called upon to put a value upon goods he had himself 
purchased from the importer, and such cases frequently occur. Jobbers 
would be affected by their relations with the persons whose goods were 
being reappraised, either up or down, and by their relations to the con¬ 
signed houses; but they would not be equally affected by their rela¬ 
tions with American manufacturers, because with them the market is 
open and the prices are known to everybody, while on the other hand 
the price of the consigned goods is an unknown quantity and avowedly 
kept as a secret. As to men having domestic interests being merchant 
appraisers, I have never yet heard anybody claim unfairness, and the 
importers all say that all they want is an even deal; they don’t want 
a man to get his goods in at 20 per cent, while they are compelled to 
pay 30. In regard to carrying out the ninth section, it is impossible 
for anybody but domestic experts to assist in carrying that out. They 
have to carefully analyze the goods and consider the value of the ma¬ 
terial and the value of the labor. 

Q. What means have domestic manufacturers of knowing the value 
of foreign labor?—A. They have frequent correspondence, and there 
is a constant stream of foreign workmen who come over here to engage 
in domestic manufactures. These men know the wages paid at home 
for all classes of labor. It is also true that domestic manufacturers are 
visiting abroad every year. 

Q. Is it your opinion that persons whose invoices are frequently ad¬ 
vanced, should be called as merchant appraisers?—A. Most decidedly 
not. I tnink they ought to mark men. I think men who are habitu¬ 
ally doing wrong should not be selected to pass upon invoices, no 
matter to what class they belong. 


James Booth, called. 

By Mr. Spaulding : 

Q. What is your business?—A. Hamil & Booth, silk manufacturers 
Paterson, N. J. 

Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Richardson. Will you please 

state whether or not you agree in the views expressed by him *_A 

Yes; I have heard Mr. Richardson’s testimony; and I think it is very 
clear and correct. I believe it is a very clear statement. 

Q. Have you any other suggestion to make in regard to this matter 
A. No ; I don’t know that I have, any more than what has been talked 
over here. I would say that the really only true way to get at this is 
to enforce the ninth section in the absence of proof of market value. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


87 


Mr. William H. Robertson, collector of the port of New York, 
called. 

By Mr. Tichenor : 

Q. Inviting your attention to the letter of the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury, dated March 16, with respect to the selection of persons to act 
as merchant appraisers, please favor us with such suggestions as you 
deem advisable on the subject.—A. I think that the collector should 
be permitted to select merchant appraisers from domestic manufact¬ 
urers, from importers, from consignees, from jobbers; but he should 
not be restricted to any one of these classes, but be permitted to select 
men that he regards honest and competent from all these classes ; that, 
instead of being confined in any particular appeal to five names, se¬ 
lected by the local appraiser, that the local appraiser should furnish 
him at stated periods with a list of reputable domestic manufacturers, 
importers, consignees, and jobbers, from which the selection should be 
made. Since I have personally designated the merchant appraisers, 
which has been within the last two weeks only, I have in a great ma¬ 
jority of the cases made my selection from the importers, and I have 
in perhaps not to exceed two cases selected any man or any class of 
men against whom any appellant has protested. 


A. P. Ketchum, appraiser of the port of New York, called. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. Please state your views as to the proposition that domestic manu¬ 
facturers shall be excluded from appointment as merchant appraisers.— 
A. Well, I am not prepared to say that domestic manufacturers, as a 
class, ought to be excluded from acting as merchant appraisers 5 but I 
think a number of them ought to be so excluded, for the simple reason 
that I don’t think they are fair men. I don’t want to mention any 
names, but to two of those gentlemen I have said, right to their faces, 
that I did not approve of their acting as merchant appraisers on reap¬ 
praisement—one of them was a very prominent manufacturer—for the 
reason that I felt that they did not possess the judicial temper or frame 
of mind. I thought they were too much influenced by opinions which 
they had in connection with importers and with matters of home indus- 
trv * but as to a number of domestic manufacturers that I could name, 
I think they would be as fair in their judgment towards the importers 
as any men I know, and at the same time I think the Government would 
have the advantage of a certain kind of information which is very use¬ 
ful on reappraisements in connection with the officers deciding the 
reappraisement. Now, to illustrate, I would name Mr. 0. Lambert as 
a man in whose fairness and knowledge and experience I would always 
place confidence, as a merchant appraiser or otherwise. Mr. Strange 
I have always found a very fair man, a very excellent man in every 
way. I don’ t care to illustrate on the other side of the question. 

Q. Will you give us your views as to the proposition to confine the 
selection of merchant appraisers to jobbers who deal in both imported 
and domestic merchandise?—A ' you mean jobbers who do not im¬ 
port I should be against the ]: * Lion. If you mean jobbers who 

import purchased goods only, a " no never receive consigned goods, 



88 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

so far as silk goods are concerned, which form the bulk of the reap- 
praisements, your list of available merchant appraisers would be con¬ 
fined probably within the limit of half a dozen or less in New York 
city, and, therefore, I could not, on the latter basis, approve the latter 
proposition. With reference to many other kinds of merchandise, 
including varieties of woollen goods, jewelry, upholstery, bric-a-brac, 
carpets, &c., the men who act as merchant appraisers are scarcely ever 
other than importers engaged in receiving goods actually purchased. 

Q. In vour opinion, should houses whose invoices are frequently ad¬ 
vanced by the appraiser be eligible to appointment as merchant ap¬ 
praisers?—A. I do not think it would be advisable to select such men 
to act as merchant appraisers upon the class of goods received by them 
at undervalued prices 5 still, it often happens that a merchant who can¬ 
not be depended upon to act on those goods which may resemble mer¬ 
chandise consigned to him at an undervaluation is thoroughly compe¬ 
tent and reliable as a merchant appraiser upon other classes of goods, 
such as he never receives, except upon actual purchase. 


William Kent, assistant appraiser, third division, caUed. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. Will you please give your views as to the propriety of confining 
the appointment of merchant appraisers to jobbers who deal in both 
foreign and domestic goods?—A. I should be opposed to it on the 
ground that they are purchasers from the very houses whose goods are 
under reappraisement, and they are unwilling to bring them up to 
carry a penalty. They will carry them to 9 x>er cent., or even if it 
was carried up to 15 per cent., they would say, “I cannot punish my 
neighbor; I purchase a great many goods from this house, and I will 
not put him into a penalty.” I will cite an instance here where we 
advanced ribbons from, I think, 47 to 55 centimes a line. We had an 
importing and jobbing merchant who receives no goods on consign¬ 
ment as merchant appraiser. The testimony was sufficient to sustain 
the price we put those goods to. He objected to indicting a penalty 
upon this merchant, and they settled, if I remember rightly, upon 53 
centimes a line, and I understood that the papers were signed" The im¬ 
porter—I am not speaking from absolute knowledge, but from the re¬ 
port that came to me—called upon this man to tell him that there was 
still a penalty. He induced him to come down here. They revised 
the papers and reduced the price just below 10 per cent. 

Q. Then the actual value of the goods was not the first consideration 
in the matter ?—A. Ko; it was to save a penalty to the importer on 
account of their business relations. 

Q. What is your judgment as to the expediency of appointing do¬ 
mestic manufacturers as merchant appraisers?—A. I see no objection 
whatever to it. I have once or twice, in view that I think myself the 
manufacturers have been a little harsh; I think they have gone to too 
great an extreme, but as a rule they are very conservative and judi¬ 
cious men. 1 should prefer them, as a rule, to any others. 

Q. From what class of merchants should the selection be made for 
merchant appraisers?—A. There are certain goods imported that are 
not manufactured in this country at all; in that case an importing 
jobber should be appointed. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


89 


Q. Do you regard firms whose invoices are frequently advanced, 
and who appear often before the general appraiser on reappraisements, 
as suitable persons to be appointed merchant appraisers?—A. They 
serve a very good purpose where their own goods have been advanced 
at a prior date. 

Q. Is that the only case where you would appoint them, Mr. Kent?— 
A. No; I couldn’t say that it is, because in some instances we do get 
goods that are properly invoiced—we know they receive goods that 
are properly invoiced. In that event they make excellent merchant 
appraisers. 

Q. Why is it, when a reappraisement is called for, that you put on 
your list as Government witnesses men whose invoices are constantly 
being advanced ?—A. Whenever I do that, I select the very best among 
them, according to my judgment—the soundest man, and the most 
truthful man, and the most honest man; and if I don’t do it, they go 
to Captain Tuzo and get him to do it. I couldn’t make up my list long 
enough without summoning some of them. They will go to Captain 
Tuzo, and he will summon worse men than I do, a good deal. 


No. 4. 

New York, April 10, 1885. 

Sir: Continuing the investigation of the methods of conducting the 
customs business at this port, we have given careful # eonsideration to 
the subject of undervaluation. While there is no doubt that the 
invoices of all classes of merchandise consigned to the United States 
for sale on foreign account are as a rule undervalued, this is notably 
true as to silk goods. During the past ten years, since the repeal of 
former restrictive and penal provisions of the revenue laws, a system 
of successful evasion of duties on silks has been gradually built up and 
established. This system of evasion has been a subject of frequent 
investigation and report at home and abroad. It is a matter of common 
notoriety in official and mercantile circles. No one familiar with the 
silk trade, here or in Europe, will contend for a moment that consigned 
silks are honestly imported into this country. 

* * * * * * * 

One of the chief difficulties in the suppression of undervaluations is 
found in the method of reappraisement prevailing at this port. The 
list of five names sent by the appraiser to the collector, from which 
selection is made of a merchant appraiser, is composed in part, some¬ 
times wholly, of firms engaged in the consignment business, whose in¬ 
voices are habitually undervalued. It is true that the names of do¬ 
mestic manufacturers and of importers, who do not receive consigned 
o'oods are also included in these lists, but the majority of the names are 
those of houses above described. The deputy collector who previous 
to January last made the appointments of merchant appraisers states 
that' he regarded it as unfair to select a domestic manufacturer to ap¬ 
praise imported goods; besides, he had received formal protests from 
the importers against such appointments, and these he regarded as 
sufficient reason for ruling out domestic manufacturers. He appears, 
however to have considered it no impropriety to appoint the agents 
of foreign manufacturers whose invoices of like goods were constantly 
undervalued and subjects of reappraisements. 



90 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

When it is understood that the general appraiser possesses little or no 
expert knowledge of the quality or value of merchandise, that the mer¬ 
chant appraisers usually appointed are agents of foreign manufacturers, 
and the witnesses called are usually in the same business, and therefore 
interested in maintaining the consignment system, it is not surprising 
that so little progress has been made towards reaching true values upon 
reappraisements. Proper results in these cases largely depend upon 
the prompt, vigorous, and intelligent action of the general appraiser. 
All advances upon invoices of 10 per cent, or more are, as a rule, appealed 
from. The examiners making the advances are usually better informed 
than any one else as to the actual value of the merchandise. The mer¬ 
chant appraiser appointed to act with the general appraiser, under the 
provisions of section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, must be a merchant 
in business on his own account. Gentlemen who are partners in large 
firms are usually selected. Many of these have little or no expert 
knowledge of the merchandise to be appraised; they depend for infor¬ 
mation upon the testimony adduced. The goods advanced by the ap¬ 
praiser are almost always consigned, not purchased. The merchants 
receiving them do not profess to have definite knowledge of the foreign 
market values. Their ideas of such values are based upon the invoice 
prices and the value in the New York market. These houses do not 
buy the goods abroad, and do not own them; they simply sell them on 
foreign account for what they will bring. The employes of these firms 
called to testify to market values do not hesitate to fix prices at or 
near the invoice prices, and these prices are generally furnished to 
them beforehand by the importer whose invoice is under reappraise¬ 
ment. When questioned, they are generally found to possess no actual 
knowledge of foreign market value. The same witnesses appear almost 
daily and give similar testimony. There are, in many cases, reports 
from the consuls showing the cost of production, and in some instances 
this has been supplemented by the testimony of domestic manufacturers 
and experts. This testimony has in repeated instances been submit¬ 
ted to the reappraising board, and has been disregarded, while the 
testimony of employes of houses receiving consigned goods, presumably 
always undervalued, has been accepted and the goods appraised at less 
than cost of production, notwithstanding the provisions of the law. 
This, however, does not always occur; when the merchant appraiser 
happens to be a person not himself engaged in the consignment busi¬ 
ness, or one who is not tied up by intimate business relations with firms 
of that character, due credit is given to the testimony adduced on 
behalf of the Government, and examiners’ advances are sustained. In 
either case, the general appraiser and his associates rarely differ. 

The practical result of reappraisements as they have been generally 
conducted is that the consignee and his business friends, each of whom 
expects return favors from his associates, virtually fix the market 
value. The idea seems to have been lost sight of that a reappraise¬ 
ment is to be conducted in practically the same way as an original ap¬ 
praisement, and that reappraising officers are not to rest their decisions 
upon testimony obtained after the manner of law courts, regardless of 
their own expert knowledge or facts procured, “by all reasonable ways 
and means in their power.” 

We are informed that it is not unusual for the merchant appraiser to 
be known to th§ appealing party before taking the required oath and 
entering upon duty, and that he and witnesses are visited before the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


91 


hearing by interested parties and furnished with the invoice prices. 
Rumors have reached us that the person selected as a merchant ap¬ 
praiser has been known to declare at these preliminary meetings the 
decision he intended to give in the case. Whatever truth there may 
be in these rumors, the fact that they obtain currency is a striking com¬ 
mentary on existing practices. 

When there are several cases set for reappraisement the same day, 
it is the practice to have them all in progress at the same time. The 
importer and his witnesses gather about the merchant appraiser, who, 
when he reaches a conclusion, consults with the general appraiser, and 
the decision is made known in the presence of the importer and wit¬ 
nesses. If this is not satisfactory to the importer, he is allowed to 
protest and reargue the case, with a view to the modification of the 
finding, in which he is often successful. This condition of affairs sug¬ 
gests the wisdom and necessity of a return to the old and legal methods 
of reappraisement outlined in a circular letter of Secretary Robert J. 
Walker, of December 26, 1848, a copy of which is enclosed marked 

Examiners who endeavor to do their duty faithfully by advancing 
invoices become discouraged after repeated failures of the appraisers 
to sustain their action. In recent cases, when values have been deter¬ 
mined upon reappraisement in the manner stated, the examiners have 
been directed by the appraiser to pass subsequent invoices in ac¬ 
cordance with the values so found. They are thus compelled to sub¬ 
ordinate their own judgment to the findings of a reappraising board 
on previous invoices, reappraised in some cases months, and even 
years before. 

There is always a reluctance on the part of appraising officers to 
advance values to the 10 per cent, limit, or, as it is expressed in the 
common parlance of the appraiser’s store, to “put the importer to a 
penalty.” This idea runs through the entire proceeding, and, accord¬ 
ing to the expressed opinion of the appraiser, is inseparable from it. 
The ascertainment of the true value of the goods and the appraisement 
thereof is thus coupled with the consideration whether a penalty will 
be involved; if so, a strong effort will be made to reduce the appraise¬ 
ment in whole or in part, so that the advance will be a shade under 10 
per cent. This tenderness towards importers, this disposition of officials 
to shield them from the legal consequences of undervaluation, has 
tended to encourage and establish the practice. 

Successful undervaluations have prevailed for so many years that the 
belief has generally obtained that nothing short of legislation will sup¬ 
press it. That legislation is needed in this direction no one will dis¬ 
pute. The adoption of specific duties, wherever practicable, would be 
a long step towards securing correct and uniform collection of duties, 
and remedial laws are needed to enable the Government to enforce the 
tariff; but we are satisfied that much of the existing conditions of affairs 
is due to faults of administration that may be corrected. 


*Note. —For the enclosed circular, see page 47. 



92 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


There is need of a thorough reorganization of the appraising depart¬ 
ment. The appraiser should devote all his time and energies to the 
great business institution under his charge; and this requirement should 
extend to all of the employes of the department. 

When it is considered that three-fourths of the importations of foreign 
merchandise coming to this country is entered at the port of New York, 
the importance of the careful administration of the appraising depart¬ 
ment cannot be overestimated. Not only are the revenues of the Gov¬ 
ernment endangered by faulty or corrupt methods, but business interests 
are disturbed, and in some cases destroyed, by the failure of the apprais¬ 
ing officers to make full, uniform, and prompt appraisements of imported 
merchandise. It is a serious question whether the existing business 
depression is not more or less due to loose and unbusiness like methods 
of appraisement, whereby one merchant pays more duties upon the same 
article than another. 

The ease with which undervalued invoices have passed the appraisers 
has invited and encouraged excessive consignments from Europe. The 
tariff laws, if impartially and absolutely enforced, would prevent im¬ 
portations at unequal and undervalued prices, and would regulate and 
restrict the introduction of foreign merchandise in accordance with the 
healthy demands of trade. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 5. 

B. 

Extracts from Testimony of Appraiser McMullen and others. 


[From testimony of Examiner (now Appraiser) Lewis McMullen, taken April 4, 1885, 
before the investigating commission of special agents at the port of New York.] 

Q. Please give your experience with respect to reappraisements 
upon which appeals have been taken, and any suggestions that occur 
to you looking to an improvement in the methods of procedure upon 
reappraisements.—A. Reappraisements as now conducted have, in my 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


03 


opinion, lost tlic character of reappraisements as contemplated by law 
and the regulations of the Department. The present practice appears 
to be to take the testimony of witnesses supposed to be experts in the 
goods, and the decision is arrived at according to the preponderance of 
testimony or the number of witnesses, thereby making the witnesses 
called in the actual appraisers instead of the reappraising board. As 
I understand the law, a reappraisement is simply the revaluation of the 
goods by another appraiser or board of appraisers, and this revalua¬ 
tion is to be made in substantially the same manner as an original ap¬ 
praisement. The introduction of the form of court procedure and the 
formal examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the admission 
of counsel to represent importers, and the appearance of importers 
themselves to act as their own counsel, do not seem to be contemplated 
by law or regulations. The ascertainment of the market value of 
merchandise by the appraiser is according to law—a purely arbitrary 
proceding; and when the importer is dissatisfied with that appraisement 
and appeals for reappraisement, that reappraisement by another officer, 
aided by the merchant called in for that purpose, is also an arbitrary 
proceeding, and conducted upon the same theory as original appraise¬ 
ments. 


[From testimony of Assistant Appraiser Kent, taken April 4, 1885.] 

Q. What proportion of the silk goods appraised in your division are 
consigned for sale on foreign account?—A. I should think from 8£ to 
90 per cent. 

Q. Do the invoices of these goods as a rule express the actual market 
value, according to the information of yourself and your examiners?— 
A. They do not. 

Q. Are they as a rule undervalued?—A. They are , according to my 
best knowledge and judgment. * * * 

Q. Is it true that foreign manufacturers, sending goods here on con¬ 
signment for sale, conceal the foreign market value?—A. It is my 
opinion they do, intentionally. * * * 

Q. Do you consider the results of reappraisements usually a true 
guide to foreign value of the goods ?—A. I do not generally. 

Q. Is not this to be attributed to the fact that often the merchant ap¬ 
praiser himself, and nearly always the witnesses who appear on these 
reappraisements, are either agents of foreign houses or their em¬ 
ployes?—A. Usually it is so. Of course that would apply to such wit¬ 
nesses as are employed by houses here. 
******* 

Q. Could not, in your opinion, this be avoided if reappraisements 
were conducted as the statutes contemplated instead of being conducted 
after the form of procedure in courts of justice, as is now the case?— 
A. Yes. Persons interested in the goods under reappraisement should 
not be allowed in the room when the goods are being examined. The 
browbeating of witnesses and threats of retaliation on the part of con¬ 
signees would be avoided if they were not allowed access together in 
the room during proceedings, and were permitted and required to 
make up and report their valuations separately and privately. Only 
one witness at a time should appear before the general and merchant 
appraisers, and the testimony of witnesses who have been “coached” 
by the importers should be ruled out as evidence. 


94 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


[From testimony of General Appraiser A. J. Perry, taken April 4, 1885.] 

Q. Do you find, as a matter of fact, that merchant appraisers ap¬ 
pointed are often importers who receive consigned goods?—A. Very 
frequently. 

Q. Who have appeared before you as appellants on their own in¬ 
voices?—A. Very frequently, especially in regard to silks. 

Q. What is the character of the testimony there adduced?—A. Speak¬ 
ing of the same kind of goods, the most of it, so far as the witnesses 
are concerned, is from those people who receive goods on consignment 
for sale in this market, who have not purchased them in the foreign 
market. 

Q. Have you found, upon questioning these people, that they do not 
profess to have a knowledge of the market value ?—A. Very frequently. 

[From testimony of Mr. Lorenzo G. Woodhouse, resident partner of Messrs. Marshall, 
Field & Co., taken April 8, 1885.] 

Q. Please state your experience in respect to reappraisements at this 
port.—A. I have been called here many times on reappraisement, but 
there have been very few cases in which I have been called as an ex¬ 
pert, where the advances have been sustained on the invoice, and very 
largely for the reason that when I would come down here, whether it 
was kid gloves, silks, velvets, or different classes of merchandise, I 
have always found the same set of witnesses on behalf of the importers, 
and I have never found of late enough witnesses who were engaged 
in the straight, honest invoicing of merchandise to have any weight in 
an important matter with the merchant and general appraiser. 

[From testimony of J. C. Wiswell, examiner of silks in the appraiser’s department, 
New York, taken April 4, 1885.] 

Q. What proportion of the invoices of consigned goods that come to 
you for examination do you find undervalued?—Well, virtually all of 
them are advanced, either by the importer or myself, or both. 

[From testimony of M. J. Corbet, examiner of silks in the appraiser’s department 
New York, taken April 3, 1885.] 

Q. These invoices of consigned goods, are they usually undervalued, 
according to your estimation of value?—A. Yes. 


No. 6. 

Testimony taken concerning the Recall and Reconsideration of Invoices , &c. 

New York, Thursday , April 2, 1885. 

Edward Leseur, examiner, fifth division, appraiser’s department 
called. 

By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. Please state the circumstances connected with an advance made 
by you upon Jouvin gloves some months ago.—A. Some months ago I 
advanced an invoice of Bossange & Co.; they were consigned to them 
by E. D. Warburg & Co., of Paris, and were Jouvin gloves, but not in- 



REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. 95 


voiced by the Jouvins. I advanced the invoice above a penalty, and 
Bossange appealed for reappraisement. Mr. Howell, of the firm of 
Charles G. Landon & Co., was merchant appraiser. Witnesses were 
summoned for the reappraisement, and appeared and appraised the 
goods, and gave their estimate of value to the merchant and general 
appraisers on the usual schedules. The witnesses, as near as I remem¬ 
ber, were Mr. Woodhouse, of Marshall Field & Co.; Mr. John Wills, 
of E. Oelbermann & Co., Goldsmith, Baccarach & Co., and, I think, 
others. I saw the schedules, but do not recollect now the exact prices 
placed upon the goods; but I am satisfied that- the prices substantially 
sustained my advance. Pending these proceedings, a representative of 
the importer appeared with Lawyer Tremaine; the hearing was post¬ 
poned. I heard no more of the case for a long time. Finally, one of 
the clerks in the appraiser’s office gave me a slip of paper and said that 
the appraiser wanted that invoice recalled from the hands of the general 
appraiser. I said, “Well, I don’t want the invoice; if the appraiser 
wants it recalled he can do so.” “Well,” he said, “the appraiser left 
word that you should see that the invoice was returned.” I said to 
Assistant Appraiser Auerbach, “I don’t want this.” I handed it to 
the clerk and said, “You can have it.” The chief clerk made requisi¬ 
tion at this time, and the invoice came back to the fifth division out of 
the hands of the general appraiser. They left it on my desk. I took 
it to Mr. Auerbach, and said I didn’t want anything to do with it, and 
after that the assistant appraiser came to me from the appraiser’s office 
with that invoice. He sat down at his desk and wrote an order on a 
slip of paper, the purport of which was, “Edward Leseur, examiner: 
You will change the value on the goods represented on this invoice in 
accordance with the figures of the appraiser.” It was in accordance 
with the figures Appraiser Ketchum had sent me before. This was in 
the afternoon. I said to Mr. Auerbach, “I don’t think I will; I won’t 
until I see the appraiser.” “All right,” he said. I went down to see 
the appraiser, but he was out; so I did nothing with it that day, but 
went home and thought the matter over. I came down in the morning, 
took the invoice and made the corrections to correspond with schedule 
that had been given by Appraiser Ketchum. I turned the invoice 
over; on the back I noted the reduction of value, as follows: “Advance 
in value corrected on this to correspond with figures at which the ap¬ 
praiser has appraised the goods in question. By order of the appraiser. ’ ’ 
I put it on Mr. Auerbach’s desk. I was sent for, and went down to 
Mr. Ketchum’s room; there I found Captain Chalker and Mr. Auer¬ 
bach. Mr. Ketchum said: ‘ 1 Mr. Auerbach informs me that he requested 
you to bring me this invoice and you refused to do so.” I said, “That 
is not so.” I told him just what I did say, and that the invoice would 
come to him in the regular course. Mr. Ketchum said he didn’t want 
those words, “By order of the appraiser,” on that invoice. “I am ap¬ 
praiser, and what I order to be done I want done, but I don’t want that 
“By order of the appraiser.” I said, “Mr. Ketchum, didn’t you order 
it?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Don’t you propose to assume the 
responsibility of your action ?” He said, “Yes, but I will not have any 
insubordination in this department.” I said, “General Ketchum, this 
is not a question, in my mind, of insubordination; it is merely a nota¬ 
tion in writing of the receipt of your letter.” After further conversa¬ 
tion, I erased those words. 

******* 


96 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Q. What reduction did the appraiser make?—A. The figures will 
show the reduction. On one line of goods he ordered a reduction of 
2 francs below the entered value. 

Q. Did this action of his conform to your judgment, or was it con¬ 
trary?—A. I told him it was not in accordance with my judgment, but 
he said “it is Captain Chalker’s judgment that this reduction is right, 
and he is the best special agent I ever worked with.” 
******* 

Q. Did you subsequently advance similar goods of the same importer 
to the same figures?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did the party appeal for reappraisement?—A. They did. 

Q. What was the result?—A. On certain lines the advance was sus¬ 
tained. 

******* 
By Mr. Tingle : 

Q. Please state circumstances connected with an advance made by 
you on goods of Passavant & Co. which went to reappraisement?—A. 
Passavant & Co. imported a glove from Treafousse & Co., known as 
quality De Lor me. The first importation was invoiced at 28 francs for 
two-button, and 30 francs for three-button gloves. They were advanced 
from time to time and reappraisements had, and finally the prices fixed 
at 35 francs for two-button, 38 francs for three-button, and 41 francs for 
four-button gloves. Captain Chalker, a special agent, came to me and 
said that he knew a gentleman that had been to Paris twice, and had 
some information in regard to undervaluation of Paris-made gloves, but 
didn’t give me his name. I said to Captain Chalker that when I had a 
case of Paris goods on the floor, I would notify him. I had a case of 
gloves, Passavant & Co. Paris-made goods, and so notified Captain 
Chalker, and said that if he had any information in regard to any un¬ 
dervaluation of these goods he should give it to me. He then took from 
his pocket a slip of paper, which had the names of several importers of 
Paris goods, and among them the name of Marshall Field & Co. I 
then asked if Mr. Woodhouse, a member of the firm, was in town. Cap¬ 
tain Chalker said, “Yes, you go and ask him, and he will tell you all 
about it. ’ ’ I did not go to see Mr. Woodhouse, but I advanced the goods, 
and called Mr. Woodhouse as one of the merchants or witnesses on re¬ 
appraisement. Messrs. Passavant & Co. called for a reappraisement; 
the papers were sent to my division for the names of merchant ap¬ 
praisers and witnesses. I gave the names of some ten or twelve wit¬ 
nesses and merchant appraisers in the glove business. The reappraise¬ 
ment came off, and a man by the name of De Forest was merchant 
appraiser, a gentleman whom I did not know; but afterwards learned 
he was an importer of silks, and never imported gloves. The result of 
the reappraisement was that the entered value of the goods was sus¬ 
tained. At the time of the reappraisement, Passavant & Co. were 
represented by Lawyer Tremaine, and Special Agent Chalker, who was 
present, expressed himself as satisfied that the entered value was cor¬ 
rect ; that the advance was not correct, upon being appealed to by Ap¬ 
praiser Ketchum, who was also present. 

****** * 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


97 


Mi*. John Wills, in charge of glove department of E. Oelbermann & 
Co., and representative of the Perinot Glove Company, called. 

By Mr. Tichenor : 

Q. Please state what your observations in regard to the manner of con¬ 
ducting reappraisements have been at this port.—A. They occur in this 
manner: The moment a person has his invoice advanced he goes around 
to see his friends whom he expects to appear as witnesses and hands 
them a copy of his invoice. By this means they acquire the market 
value of the goods imported. I have had two applications made to me 
within the last month or so, but declined to attend, as I have not been 
in the market for some time, and was not acquainted with the goods in 
reappraisement. A copy of the invoice was handed me [showing paper] 
for the purpose of showing me how to make my prices, and I was told 
I would be fully posted. The majority of the witnesses expect the same 
favor when their turn comes. The merchant appraiser is generally 
looked up in the same manner. 

Q. Is it known to the importer who the merchant appraiser is to be 
before the time of reappraisement?—A. Very frequently. 

Q. Where is that information obtained?—A. I imagine from the cus¬ 
tom-house. 

Q. Have you known of any cases where the merchant appraiser was 
known beforehand?—A. I think I have known of frequent cases of 
that kind. 

Q. Is there any truth in the statement that the importer whose goods * 
are to be appraised has a voice in the selection of the merchant ap¬ 
praiser?—A. When there has been a reappraisement, endeavors have 
been made to have the names of certain merchants put on the list that 
is sent to the custom-house, I believe, for selection, and these merchant 
appraisers have been appointed. 

Q. Have there been cases within your knowledge where you were 
satisfied that the merchant appraiser’s mind was fully made up as to 
his action before the hearing of the case?—A. I am perfectly satisfied 
of it. 

* % * * * * *■ 

Q. In what classes of gloves are undervaluations most prevalent now ?— 
A. My opinion is that, with the exceptions of the brands, the value of 
which was established some years ago, all goods are undervalued. 

Q. To what extent?—A. 1 think that, as a witness testifying on re- 
appraisement, I have advanced invoices over 60 per cent. 

Q. Have these advances been sustained?—A. No, sir. Advances 
are seldom made to the extent of 10 per cent.; it is not often that ad¬ 
vances are made on reappraisement over 10 per cent. I know of a case, 
however, where, after an advance was made less than 10 per cent., the 
importer added to a subsequent invoice of the same goods, on entry, 
$1,200, to make market value, which was not less than 50 per cent, on 
the invoiced value. 

Q. Were you present as a witness at the reappraisement of gloves 
consigned to Bossange & Go., some time in September of last year?—A. 
Yes; I was a witness about that time on reappraisement. 

Q. Who was the merchant appraiser?—A. Mr. Howell, of Charles 
Landon & Co. . 

Q. Did you examine and appraise the goods?—A. Yes; I examined 
the goods very carefully. 

7 A 


98 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 7. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. 6’., June 9, 1885. 

Sir: Your attention is called to the instructions of the Department 
contained in Synopsis, 2655, and to Regulations of 1884, articles 469, 
474, 1407, 1416, relating to the method of procedure in reappraising 
merchandise. The law of reappraisement is precisely the same as that 
of original appraisement, and there is no authority or justification for 
the system which, it appears, has grown up in your office of treating a 
reappraisement as in the nature of a trial in a court of law, wherein the 
reappraising officers sit as judges and render decisions according to the 
preponderance of testimony adduced. 

The law provides that the merchant appraiser shall be familiar with 
the character and value of the goods in question, and it is presumed 
that the general appraiser will have or will acquire such expert knowl¬ 
edge of the goods he is to appraise as to enable him to intelligently per¬ 
forin his official duty with a due regard for the rights of all parties and 
independently of the testimony of interested witnesses. 

The functions of the reappraising board are the same as those of the 
original appraisers. They are themselves to appraise the goods, and 
not to depend for their information upon the appraisement of so-called 
experts in the line of the goods in question. 

I am informed that it is the practice to hold reappraisements on cer¬ 
tain days of the week within the hours of twelve and three, and that, 
owing to the number of appeals pending, two or more cases are often 
heard at the same time by different merchant appraisers, all acting in 
conjunction with the general appraiser; that importers and witnesses 
are permitted to throng the general appraiser’s office, in whose presence 
the conclusions of the appraising board are often announced; and that if 
such conclusions are not satisfactory to the importer, he is allowed to 
protest and reargue the case, with a view to a modification of the find¬ 
ing, in which he is often successful. 

It is plain that all this is a wide departure from the methods of 
reappraisement contemplated by the law and regulations, and must 
necessarily result in injury to the revenue and general demoralization 
among officials and importers. 

The local appraisers are expected to do their full duty in ascertaining, 
estimating, and appraising the true and actual market value or whole¬ 
sale price of imported merchandise at the time of exportation, and in 
the principal markets of the country whence the same has been im¬ 
ported. When appeals are taken from the valuation so found, it is 
expected that the general appraiser and merchant appraiser selected to 
act with him will reappraise the merchandise in substantially the same 
manner as is pursued on priginal appraisement. 

Section 2922 of the Revised Statutes authorizes appraisers to call be¬ 
fore them and examine under oath any owner, importer, consignee, or 
other person, touching anything which they may deem material in ascer¬ 
taining the true market value or wholesale price of any merchandise 
imported. 

It is by this law that appraisers are authorized to summon witnesses, 
but there is no authority for the public examination of such witnesses 
or their cross-examination by importers or counsel employed by such 
importers. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


99 


The appraising officers are entitled to all information obtainable con¬ 
cerning the foreign market value of goods under consideration, but such 
information is not public property. It is due to merchants and others, 
called to give such information, that their statements shall be taken in 
the presence of official persons only. It must often occur that persons 
in possession of facts which would be of value to the apj)raisers in deter¬ 
mining market values are deterred from appearing or testifying by the 
publicity given to reappraisement proceedings. 

Article 1416 of the Regulations enjoins appraisers to give courteous 
and due attention to the explanations and statements of importers, in 
person or by representative, relating to the subject-matter under in¬ 
vestigation ; but they are to limit the privilege so accorded to one per¬ 
son in each single case of reappraisement, to receive only statements of 
fact, and to require all facts to be stated concisely, and not argumenta¬ 
tively. This regulation has been so construed that attorneys-at-law 
and custom-house brokers have appeared and acted as representatives 
of the importer on reappraisement. 

Such a construction is erroneous. The representative of the importer 
in such cases should be his employe or salesman—some person belong¬ 
ing to his house familiar with the facts touching the subject-matter 
under consideration. There is no office here for the lawyer or custom¬ 
house broker, and such persons, as well as all others not officially called 
before the appraisers, should be excluded. 

This Department expects that all appraising officers, including the 
general appraisers, will co-operate in all proper measures for the sup¬ 
pression of undervaluations and the just and uniform appraisement of 
imported merchandise, to the end that the tariff laws may be strictly 
enforced, and fair and honorable merchants protected from loss by the 
dishonest practices of unscrupulous importers. 

Very respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Mr. A. J. Perry, 

United States General Appraiser , New York , N. Y. 


100 REPORT OF THE s SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


INVESTIGATIONS BY SPECIAL AGENTS INTO THE 
GENET? AT, CONDITION OF THE CUSTOMS 
SERVICE. 


No. 1. 

General Instructions to Special Agents assigned to the Duty of Examining 

the manner in which the Customs Business is Transacted in the Several 

Collection Districts. 

I. Ascertain by actual count the amount of money on hand. This 
must be done immediately upon the arrival of the agent at the custom¬ 
house. 

II. Examine the several accounts of the collector, making a compari¬ 
son of the “daily register of moneys received from all sources,” with 
the “impost record,” the several records of payments, the records oi 
accounts current, and the “daily record of balances on account.” 

III. Compare the records of arrivals and clearances of vessels, of 
registry, enrolment, and license of vessels, of marine-hospital money, 
and of steamboat-inspection fees with the “daily register of receipts 
from all sources,” checking off the several items, and verifying the foot¬ 
ings of each column of figures. 

IY. Examine all records connected with the entry of merchandise, 
either for consumption, warehouse, or rewarehouse, and examine the 
original entries, and all returns connected therewith, making a com¬ 
parison of the entries with the several records and the manifests of ves¬ 
sels in which goods were imported. 

Y. Examine all records and business connected with the withdrawal 
of merchandise from warehouse, whether for consumption, transporta¬ 
tion, or export. Exportations for benefit of drawback must be exam¬ 
ined with special care. 

YI. Examine all records relating to marine business. 

YII. Examine the public correspondence of the collector’s office, and 
all records relating to general business, such as records of public prop¬ 
erty, record of seizures, fines, penalties, and forfeitures. 

YIII. Examine the business of the naval office, the surveyor’s office, 
and the appraiser’s office, and the records and correspondence connected 
therewith. 

The object of these examinations is to furnish the Department with 
full information respecting the practical operations of the several cus¬ 
tom-houses, and special agents are particularly enjoined to conduct them 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 101 


in a courteous and gentlemanly manner. In making their reports, 
agents will make correct answers to the following interrogatories, and 
conclude the report with such general or special remarks as may be 
deemed proper for the information of the Department. These answers 
must not be based upon the unsupported statements of customs officers , but 
must be made upon the personal knowledge of the agent as to the condition 
and methods of business at the port examined . At ports where there is a 
naval officer, or where the volume of business is so great as to make a 
minute examination of every transaction impracticable, an examination 
of a sufficient number of transactions will be made to satisfy the agent 
of the correctness of the methods of business pursued. 

Special agents will not confine their inquiries within the limits of the 
interrogatories, but will report any infraction which may be observed 
by them on the part of customs officers, of law, or the regulations, 
orders, or instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Note. —Where the allotted space is not sufficient for a full answer to an interrogatory, 
it may he written upon a separate sheet and appropriately numbered. 


Port of Boston, September 12, 1885. 

Report of examination of the customs business in the district of Boston and 
Charlestown , by Special Agents N. W. Bingham , B. H. Hinds , C. H. 
Lapp , and General Appraiser H. W. Combs , under Department instruc¬ 
tions of June 9 and August 3, 1885. 

1. Money on hand, as ascertained by actual count, on the 6th day of 
August, 1885, at the close of business hours:—Hone. 

Note.—I f any papers or memoranda are found with the cash on hand, purporting to 
represent money, state the character of such papers or memoranda, and the several 
amounts they represent. 


2. Amount on deposit with the assistant treasurer of the United 
States, or with a United States depositary, under the several disburse¬ 
ment accounts and emolument account, upon said date: 


Expense collecting revenue.... 

Excess of deposits. 

Debentures. 

Revenue-Marine Service. 

Steamboat fees. 

Special deposit, duties.. 

Special deposit, night service. 
Award of compensation. 


$13,269 69 
80, 408 78 
72, 606 55 
1, 719 47 
9 00 
732 44 
135 00 
142 75 


169, 023 68 

Leas balance due collector authorized by Department letter and telegram 

(C. S. F.) July 20, 1885. 89 44 


168, 934 24 

3. State the balance on the several accounts as they were reported in 
the last report made to the Commissioner of Customs of “ moneys 













102 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


received and paid,” and date of said report.—Balances per report 
dated August 1, 1885, on account of— 



Due United Due offieer . 
States. 

Customs . . 


T.ife-Saving Service . . 

. $89 44 

Stp.^nihn^t fpps . 

$9 00 . 


14,158 34 . 

PlTpense pnllfiptdll 0, r^VPTine prior yours..... 

9'396 30 . 

Mari no-H ospital Soryioo. . 


Excess of deposits . 

80,972 18 . 

Dehfintiirfis . 

78’962 62 . 

Rovoniio-Marino Soryio.o oiirront yoar. 

'739 05 . 

Rovoniio-Marino. 8>orvjoo ^ooonnt- .Tui>p 

1,193 10 . 

Official emoluments . 


Special deposit duties . 

719 40 . 

Special deposit night, service . 

115 00 . 

Award of compensation . 

142 75 . 

Total. 

186,407 74 ; 89 44 



4. State amounts received and paid or deposited on the several ac¬ 
counts since the date of said last report to the Commissioner of Customs, 
viz., from August 1, 188—, to August 6, 188—: 



Received. 

Deposited. 

Paid. 

Customs. . 

$339,774 71 
89 
36 10 

$339,774 71 
89 
36 10 


Lead seals. 

. 

Steam boat fees. 

Expense collecting the revenue. 

$888 65 

563 40 
6,356 07 
212 68 

Unexpended balance expense collecting the revenue... 
Excess of deposits. 


9,396 30 

Debentures . 



Weighing. 

15 24 
646 27 
103 00 
33 04 
, 95 00 

228 78 
597 33 

15 24 
646 27 
103 00 

Official emoluments. 

Immigrant fund. 


Special deposit, duties. 

20 00 
75 00 

Special deposit, night service. 


Storage. 

228 78 
597 33 

Tonnage. 


Total. 


341.530 36 

350,798 62 

8,115 80 



5. State the aggregate of balances on the several accounts as shown 
on the morning of the inspection by the “ daily record of balances on 
accounts 7 7 and other records: 



Due United 
States. 

Due officer. 

Life-Saving Service. 


$89 44 

Marine-hospital tax. 


Steamboat fees. ..... 

$9 (X) 
13,269 69 
80,408 78 
72,606 55 
526 37 
1,193 10 


Expense collecting revenue. 


Excess of deposits. 


Debentures . 


Revenue-Marine Service, current vear. 


Revenue-Marine Service, account June. 

Official emoluments. 


Special deposit, duties. 

Special deposit, night service. 

732 44 
135 00 
142 75 


Award of compensation. 


Total. 


169,023 68 

89 44 









































































































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


103 


6. State the result ol comparison ol the cash on hand and on deposit, 
with the balances as shown by the * 4 daily record of balances on ac¬ 
counts” and other records: 


Aggregate balance per records. $168 934 24 

Amount on hand and on deposit. I75’ 440 32 


*6, 506 08 

7. How often are reports oi transactions and remittances of money 
collections made to the collector by deputy collectors in charge of out¬ 
side or sub-ports?—No collections made at outside or sub-ports; no 
deputy collectors are stationed at such sub-ports. 

8. Are the details ol the reports from outside ports promptly entered 
on the record ot * i receipts of moneys from all sources?”—No reports 
received. (See No. 7.) 

9. Are all collections entered on the “daily register of receipts of 
moneys from all sources” at the time of their receipt?—They are. 

10. How often are deposits of money collections made with the as¬ 
sistant treasurer or United States depositary?—Daily. 

11. If there is any variance from general instructions as to the deposit 
ot money collections, state the authority, if any, for such variance.— 
None. 

12. State whether the collector makes deposit of all drafts for dis¬ 
bursement funds immediately upon their receipt from the Depart¬ 
ment.—He does. 

13. Are disbursements of public funds invariably made by checks 
payable to the persons who have actually performed the service, or to 
whom the money is actually due for material furnished or services per¬ 
formed?—They are. 

14. Does the collector retain in his hands any portion of the collec¬ 
tions at the time of making deposits?—He does not. 

15. Are the money collections ever used for payment of salaries or 
other expenditures, or for the collector’s private purposes?—They are 
not. 

16. Do the records show the proper collection of all legal fees?—They 
do, so far as we are able to discover. 

17. Are any excessive or illegal fees collected?—There are not. 

18. Is the schedule of fees chargeable by law posted in the custom¬ 
house in some public place, as required by section 4383, Revised Stat¬ 
utes.—It is. 

19. Is the record of daily balances on his several accounts prqjperly 
kept, and are the entries in the “daily record of disbursements” made 
when payments are made, so that it shows the amount disbursed daily 
on the several accounts?—Record of daily balances is properly kept, 
and entries in the “daily record of disbursements” are made, so that it 
shows the amount disbursed daily on the several accounts. 

20. Are all duties, fees, and other collections paid at the custom¬ 
house, and at the time entry is made or the service performed for 
which the fee is charged?—Yes, except charges for storage, whi^h are 
collected by the permit clerk at the Government warehouse, and re¬ 
ported at custom-house at the close of each day. 

* Which is accounted for as follows: 

Unpaid checks, general account, prior to August 1. $1,778 62 

Unpaid checks, August 1 to 6, inclusive. 4.652 46 

Unpaid checks, special deposit, duties.. 75 00 


Total 


6,506 08 











104 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


21. Are duties always paid in coin, or certificates of deposit of coin, 
with the assistant treasurer of the United States, or in United States 
notes?—They are. 

22. Are drafts, checks, or other representatives of money ever re¬ 
ceived by the collector for moneys payable at the custom-house in cur¬ 
rency.—They are not. 

23. Are any of the public moneys ever deposited in unauthorized 
banks, or deposited elsewhere than with the assistant treasurer of the 
United States or a United States depositary?—No. 

24. Are weekly reports made to the Secretary of the Treasury of 
moneys received and deposited, and weekly reports to the Commissioner 
of Customs of disbursement funds, as required by the regulations? If 
not made weekly, how often are they transmitted?—These reports are 
made weekly, as required by regulations. 

25. How often are comparisons of the footings of the impost records 
made with the footings of the column of duties collected in the “daily 
register of moneys received from all sources?”—Daily. 

26. Upon examination of the entries of merchandise for consumption, 
the impost record, the records of accounts current, the records of arrivals 
and clearances of vessels, and the record of moneys received for steam¬ 
boat inspection, licenses to captains and engineers, the records of licenses 
of vessels, and the “daily register of moneys received from all sources,” 
do you find all the collections for duties, fees, &c., therein recorded 
properly accounted for?—A careful examination of the records and a 
large number of entries and other official papers convinces us that 
collections for duties, fees, &c., therein recorded have been properly 
accounted for. 

27. Upon examination of manifests on file and the record of arrivals 
of vessels from foreign countries since the date of the last examination 
of this custom-house, and upon inquiry of consignees of such vessels, 
are you satisfied that, all manifested foreign goods brought into the port 
and landed have been duly entered or taken possession of by the col¬ 
lector?—We are. 

28. Are entries made of all goods imported, whether free or dutiable, 
when such entries are required by law and regulations?—They are. 

29. Do invoices accompany ent ries in all cases when required by law 
or regulations?—They do now. We found that under a misconstruction 
of Department telegram of September 6, 1880, entries of immediate- 
transportation goods from other ports, even in the absence of original 
invoices, permitted on uncertified copies. This practice is discontinued. 

3Ql When merchandise of over one hundred dollars in value is entered 
on proforma invoice, is a bond always taken from the importer to pro¬ 
duce a verified invoice, and is an affidavit as to the cost or value of 
such merchandise taken, as required by the act of June 22, 1874?,—A 
bond is always taken. Gross irregularities were discovered as to appli¬ 
cations and affidavits, the particulars of which will be set forth hereafter 
in this report. 

31. Are entries made in proper form, and are the estimated duties 
collected in all cases before the permit is issued for delivery of the im¬ 
ported merchandise?—Yes. 

32. Is a proper selection made of the required number of packages 
designated for examination, and bond taken (Form 86 of the Begulations) 
for the return of the packages delivered to the importer before ascertain¬ 
ment and liquidation of duties, as required bylaw ?—In our judgment, the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


105 


selection of packages for examination has not always been judicious. 
On some invoices too many packages of the same line of goods have 
been designated, and on others too few packages where different lines 
were represented. The attention of the collector and his deputies has 
been called to this matter, and we believe greater care will be exercised 
in the future. 

33. Are these bonds properly executed, and, where the general bond 
(Form No. 87) is taken, is the account of the delivery of the several 
importations on said bond properly recorded thereon, and, in case the 
penalty of the bond is exhausted, as shown by said record, is anew bond 
always required before the delivery of other imported packages!—Bonds 
are properly executed, and the account of the delivery is properly re¬ 
corded, and a new bond is required before other imported packages are 
delivered, in case the penalty of the bond is exhausted. 

34. Upon free entry of “household goods,’ 7 emigrants’ effects,” 
“professional implements,” “tools of trade,” &c., is the personal oath 
required by law in such cases always administered! And upon free 
entry of church regalia, books, &e., philosophical instruments, &c., 
for incorporated institutions, &c., are the affidavits in such cases made 
in good faith at the time of entry!—The personal oath required by law 
is administered in such cases ; affidavits upon free entry of church re¬ 
galia, books, &c., are supposed to be made in good faith. 

35. On entry of goods paying specific duty, and of which the weight 
or measure is not given in the invoice or entry, are the fees for weigh¬ 
ing, gauging, or measuring, as the case may be, collected as required 
by the regulations!—They are, but cases of that kind seldom occur. 

36. Are all weighable and gaugeable goods properly weighed and 
gauged, and return thereof made without delay by the officer perform¬ 
ing that duty; and are weighers’ and gaugers’ dock-books properly 
made up and filed!—From the dock-books and returns we find that 
weights and gauges are properly returned, and the dock-books properly 
made up and filed. 

37. (1) State whether the persons borne upon the weighers’ and 
gaugers’ labor pay-rolls are actually employed for the full time charged. 
(2) Are other persons borne upon custom-house labor pay-rolls actually 
employed as laborers for the full time charged!—(1) Yes. (2) Yes, 
except as follows: Geo. E. Jepson, messenger to the collector; R. C. 
Bodfish, messenger to the warehouses; F. H. Pease, messenger at ap¬ 
praisers; E. S. Hamilton, messenger and janitor at appraiser’s; Dudly 
Sanborn, janitor at inspectors’ room. 

38. Upon comparison of the work of the several weighers and as¬ 
sistant weighers, do you find the average deficit greater with some 
weighers than with others! Do the records show any indication that 
particular importers are favored in the weighing!—We are unable to 
discover any difference in the average deficits shown by the returns of 
the different weighers or assistant weighers on analogous cargoes. The 
records show no indication that particular importers are favored in 
the weighing. 

39. Are regulations as to allowance for tare properly carried out!— 
They are. 

40. Are all foreign goods, except packages not designated for exam¬ 
ination, duly examined and appraised by the appraiser, or the officer 
acting as such, and proper return thereof made on the invoice!—Yes. 

41. Is there undue delay in making returns of appraisements!— 


106 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Previous to this investigation there has been undue delay, the practice 
having been to note upon the invoice (in pencil) the result of the ex¬ 
amination and retain the invoices until a dull season, when reports were 
made. This practice was discontinued upon our recomendation, and 
reports of appraisement are now made when the examination is com¬ 
pleted. There is, in our opinion, much undue delay in the execution 
and return of damage appraisements. 

42. Is the sampling of sugar and other goods appraised by sample 
correctly performed; are excessive samples taken, and what disposi¬ 
tion is made of samples?—Sampling is correctly performed. Exces¬ 
sive samples are not taken so far as we can learn. Samples of any 
commercial value are returned to the importers as soon as the apprais¬ 
ing officers are done with them. 

43. Are the requirements of the regulations with respect to the ex¬ 
amination of merchandise arriving under warehouse and transporta¬ 
tion bond duly complied with?—So far as we have been able to learn, 
they are. 

44. (1) Upon examination of the record of damage allowances, do 
you find evidence that some importers have more claims and allow¬ 
ances for damage than others in the same line of business? (2) Are 
excessive allowances made?—(1) No. (2) Improper allowances, in our 
opinion, have been made in some cases. Further information upon 
this subject will be given in this report hereafter. 

45. In how many cases have invoice values been advanced upon ap¬ 
praisement? State amount of duties arising from such advances.—We 
are unable from personal examination to answer this question, but sub¬ 
mit instead a letter herewith enclosed (Exhibit “C”) from the assistant 
appraiser. 

46. Are the liquidations carefully made upon the face of the entries, 
and a full record made of the estimated and liquidated duties in the 
book provided for that purpose?—The liquidations are carefully made 
upon the entry and properly entered upon the book kept for that pur¬ 
pose. 

47. Is notice of liquidation of entries publicly posted in the custom¬ 
house?—It is. 

48. State whether the increased and additional duties ascertained on 
liquidation to be due the United States are promptly collected.—They 
are as promptly as possible under the incorrect practice that has for 
many years prevailed of delivering examination packages before the 
liquidation of the entry and the settlement of the duties. 

49. State the amount of increased and additional duties found due 
the United States on liquidation of entries remaining unpaid, as shown 
by the records, giving the date of the entry, the number of the entry, 
importer’s name, estimated and liquidated duties, and amount due on 
each entry.—The total amount of additional duties found to be unpaid 
at this date is $20,882.21. For date and number of entry and other 
particulars, see exhibit marked “A.” 

50. Are increased and additional duties found due on liquidated en¬ 
tries collected before delivery of examined packages?—Prior to this 
investigation examined packages were permitted before the invoice was 
returned by the appraiser; consequently, in many instances the ad¬ 
ditional duties were not collected before the delivery of the examina¬ 
tion packages. Wecalled the attention of the collectorto Synopsis, 7047 
since which time no permits are issued until after the return of the ap’ 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 107 


praiser; and if additional duties are found due or invoice returned not 
correct, the examination packages are held until the entry has been 
liquidated and duties all paid. 

51. Is the excess of deposits refunded upon vouchers from importers 
from moneys obtained from the Department for payment of such re¬ 
funds, and is an account current of such payments rendered to the De¬ 
partment !—Y es. 

52. Does the record of liquidation show that these refunds are 
promptly paid after liquidation of entries !—It does. 

53. Are proper powers of attorney always required before an agent 
or attorney of an importer is allowed to represent him in the transaction 
of customs business, and are agents and attorneys allowed to sign for 
importers who are at the time present at the port!—Proper powers of 
attorney are always required. Agents or attorneys are not permitted 
to sign when the importers are present at the port. 

54. Are all consumption and withdrawal entries recorded in the im¬ 
post book each day as the entries are made!—They are. 

55. Are the collection of increased and additional duties found due 
ou liquidation of entries recorded in the impost book or other proper 
record, when such duties are collected and on the day they are col¬ 
lected!—They are. 

56. Are all the requirements of regulations, with respect to the ex¬ 
ecution and cancellation of customs bonds, duly complied with!—They 
are. 

57. Are warehouse entries required to be made in accordance with 
the regulations, “the dutiable value of each package of dry-goods, 
hardware, or other package goods, in all cases being stated,’ 7 and when 
the goods pay specific duty, the quantity of each package stated!—They 
are. 

58. Are warehouse entries liquidated by package, so that the quan¬ 
tity, value, and duty of each package is stated in the liquidation!—Yes. 

59. Are the warehouse and rewarehouse ledger accounts promptly 
opened and kept in accordance with the regulations!—They are. 

60. Are the withdrawal entries entered on the credit side of these 
ledgers as soon as the entries are made, and at the same time are they 
recorded on the backs of the bonds, as required by the regulations!— 
They are. 

61. Are additional duties upon merchandise remaining in warehouse 
more than one year from date of importation duly collected as required 
by section 2970, Revised Statutes!—They are. 

62. Are the several daily registers of rewarehouse, transportation, 
and exportation entries kept, and the entries recorded therein as they 
are made from day to day!—They are. 

63. Are the several registers of bonds kept, and the entries recorded 
therein as they occur!—They are. 

64. Are there any overdue transportation or exportation bonds! If 
so, give a statement of them in detail.—There are. See detailed state¬ 
ment (enclosure) marked “B.” 

65. State the number of bonded warehouses, their class and general 
condition, and the number of storekeepers employed. One hundred 
and one, namely: Two of Class I, fifty-eight of Class III, thirty-six of 
Class IV, three of Class Y, and two of Class YI. General condition, 
fair. The better class are used for the most perishable merchandise, and 
the balance are fit buildings for the purposes for which they are used. 
Number of storekeepers, fourteen. 


108 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


66. Is the compensation of storekeepers promptly collected each 
month from the proprietors of the several bonded warehouses, as pre¬ 
scribed by the regulations?—Yes. 

67. Does the collector’s disbursement account show that the moneys 
received for storekeepers’ services are duly accounted for?—It does. 

68. Do the storekeepers receive any compensation direct from the 
proprietors of the bonded warehouses?—-Not so far as we have been able 
to learn. 

69. Are the storekeepers’ records properly kept, and do the store¬ 
keepers make daily returns to the collector of goods received, permitted, 
and delivered ?—Yes. 

70. Are the salaries of the storekeepers paid to them for their own 
use and benefit?—Yes. 

71. Does any arrangement exist by which a proprietor of a warehouse 
is allowed to make nominal payment for salary of storekeeper, in order 
that the collector may be enabled to obtain compensation for storage?— 
Question not applicable to this port. 

72. Are the bonded warehouses, while unlocked, ever left by the store¬ 
keepers in charge of irresponsible persons ?—Not so far as we can learn. 

73. Is an inventory of all goods in warehouse made once a year, and 
compared with the storekeepers’ record kept at the custom-house, as 
prescribed by the regulations?—Inventories made in January and July 
of each year. 

74. Are the storekeepers transferred from one bonded warehouse to 
another at least once a year, as prescribed by the regulations?—Yes. 

75. Upon a comparison of the goods in bonded warehouses with the 
storekeepers’ record and the record at the custom-house, is any decrep- 
ancy found to exist?—Not any. 

76. In the transfer of bonded merchandise from warehouse or vessel 
to cars or other vessel, for transportation, is such merchandise always 
carted by a bonded dray?—Yes. 

77. In the transfer of unappraised bonded merchandise from vessel to 
cars or other vessel, and in the entry and shipment of such goods, are 
the regulations applicable thereto duly observed?—They are. 

78. Are the regulations duly complied with in respect to the receipt 
aftid custody of merchandise arriving under immediate-transportation 
entry?—Yes, except that goods arriving from New York on the steamers 
ol the Metropolitan Line have for a few months been permitted to re¬ 
main on the wharf for forty-eight hours after the discharge of the steamer, 
the same as in the case of steamships arriving from a foreign port, and 
in violation of article 775 of the Regulations of 1884. The practice has 
now been discontinued. 

79. Are proper manifests for each car transporting bonded or unap¬ 
praised merchandise always certified by the officer who actually super¬ 
vised the lading of the merchandise in the car and sealed the same?— 
They are. 

80. Is the lading of bonded goods for export, or goods exported for 
benefit of drawback, on board the exporting vessel, always done under 
the personal supervision of an officer, and does he make out the certifi¬ 
cate ot lading? State also what examination is made as to the character 
and quality of goods exported for drawback, and whether samples of 
the goods are taken and retained in the custom-house.—Goods are laden 
on board the vessel under the personal supervision of an officer, who 
makes out the certificate of lading. They are examined by the inspect¬ 
ors, who send samples to appraiser’s stores whenever practicable. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 109 

81. What is the practice pursued with reference to the sale of un¬ 
claimed and seized goods and warehoused goods remaining in bond more 
than three years'? Do the contents of the seizure-room agree with the 
record of seizures?—They are advertised. Catalogues are issued and 
goods are sold at public auction. The contents of the seizure-room agree 
with the record of seizures. 

82. Is the money received from these sales paid at once to the collector 
at the custom-house, or is it paid to the auctioneer; and, if so, how long 
is it allowed to remain in his hands?—Paid to collector. 

83. Are the contents of packages of unclaimed and seized goods care¬ 
fully inventoried, accounted for, and proper precautions taken against 
the substitution of inferior goods, or against pilfering, prior to the 
sales?—They are. 

84. Are records of the sales of these goods, as required by law and 
regulations, properly kept, and the entries made therein on the day 
the sales take place?—They are. 

85. (1) From personal inquiry regarding the financial standing of per¬ 
sons whose names appear as sureties on bonds for duties, are you satisfied 
as to the solvency of such sureties? (2) Upon examination of bonds 
for warehouses, are you satisfied that they are at this time good and 
sufficient?—(1) Yes. (2) Yes. 

85. Are the bonds taken for registration, enrolment, and license of 
vessels fully executed before the issue of the marine papers ?—They are. 

87. Is the record of registration, enrolment, and license always made 
before the certificates thereof are issued, and are the indexes of such 
documents written up to date?—Yes. 

88. Is the record of the abstract of tonnage of registered, enrolled, 
and licensed vessels properly kept, and the record duly made therein 
on the surrender of marine papers and the issue of new documents ?— 
Yes.. 

89. Is prompt notice given to collector of the home port of a vessel 
when a license expires and a temporary license is issued ?—It is. 

90. Upon change of master of vessel belonging at some other port, 
is the proper indorsement always made on enrolment or license, as the 
case may be, and notice given to the collector of the home port of the 
vessel?—Yes. 

91. Are all bills of sale, mortgages, and other conveyances promptly 
entered upon the index and recorded in the record provided for that 
purpose?—Yes. 

92. Are the current daily transactions of the custom-house recorded 
in the several records from day to day as they occur?—They are. 

93. Are boarding officers instructed to verify the correctness of the 
seaman’s time-book as kept on board vessels, and is this duty faithfully 
performed?—They are as to vessels returning from a voyage commenced 
before June 30, 1884. 

94. Are the reports of hospital-dues always verified by a comparison 
with the seaman’s time-book before collection of the hospital-tax?— 
They are. 

95. Upon comparison of the public property in the custom-house with 
the record and returns thereof, do you find it correct?—We do. 

96. In what condition do you find the custom-house building and 
premises?—In good condition. 

97. In what condition do you find the weighing, gauging, and other 
implements required for the customs business?—All that we have been 


110 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


able to see we find in good condition. The surveyor reports all in good 
condition. 

98. Are there any revenue boats in the district; and, if so, what is 
their condition?—There are two revenue boats stationed here, and both 
are in good condition. The steamer 44 Hamlin ’ ’ and the cutter 44 Galla¬ 
tin ’’ are also under the control of the collector of this port. The former 
is in fair and the latter in good condition. 

99. Do the collector and other principal officers give their personal 
attention to the business of their respective offices, and are they in daily 
attendance at the custom-house during office-hours?—This question 
answered elsewhere in this report. 

100. Give the names of all the employes of the district, their compen¬ 
sation, their character for competency and efficiency, and the nature of 
the duties performed by each?—See enclosures marked as follows: 
Collector’s department, " 4 4 D; ” surveyor’s department, 4 4 E; ” naval 
office, 4 4 F ; ” appraiser’s department, 4 ‘ G. ” 

101. Are there any persons borne upon the custom-house pay-rolls 
who perform little or no actual service, or who are engaged in private 
business ? If so, give their names.—None who perform little or no actual 
service, except as will be hereafter stated. The collector is proprietor 
of the 44 Boston Evening Traveller” and a director of a national bank, 
but none of his official time is taken up thereby. 

102. What reduction, if any, can be made in the force as no\v em¬ 
ployed without detriment to the public interests?—This question an¬ 
swered elsewhere in this report. 

103. Considering the character of the work performed by the several 
employes, and their efficiency, is the salary in any instance excessive, 
and more than is usually paid in private business for similar services, 
or is such salary in any case deficient?—This question answered else¬ 
where in this report. 

104. Are certain inspectors detailed for special service; and, if so, for 
what reason?—This question answered elsewhere in this report, under 
head of 44 Night inspectors.” 

105. If there are inspectresses employed at the port, state the nature 
of their employment and the amount of service rendered by them?— 
There is one inspectress, whose duty it is to be present upon the arrival 
of foreign steamers, for the purpose of searching the persons of female 
passengers suspected of being engaged in smuggling. 

106. What persons, if any, are allowed to board vessels with the board¬ 
ing officer, and have access to passengers prior to the landing of pas¬ 
sengers’ baggage?—Friends of persons arriving, by obtaining a pass 
from either the collector or surveyor, signed by the former, are permit¬ 
ted to go on board the revenue tug, and from thence to the incoming 
steamer before her arrival at the dock. Persons having passes either 
from the steamship company or collector are permitted to go on the 
dock and meet their friends before the landing of their baggage. 

107. Are due precautions taken to prevent the improper landing of 
excessive sea-stores found on board vessels from foreign ports, and is 
entry of such excessive stores required to be made in accordance with 
law?—Yes. 

108. Are the rentals paid for buildings occupied for customs pur¬ 
poses as low as are paid for similar property used for private business?— 
With the exception of the building in the State Street block, leased 
from the Sears estate, used partially for the storage of bonded goods 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Ill 


and partially for the appraiser’s purposes, we believe the rents are as 
low as paid for similar property used for private purposes. The Sears 
building is contiguous to the public stores, and necessary for Govern¬ 
ment purposes. The rent paid for this building is $7,500 per annum, 
while similar stores in the same block are rented by private parties for 
$3,000 and $4,000. By using such portions of this building as are not 
needed by the appraiser’s force for the storage of bonded merchandise, 
the Government receives for storage from $8,000 to $9,000 per annum. 

109. Are the buildings so occupied as suitable for customs purposes 
as can be obtained at the port?—They are. 

110. Is the custom-house used or occupied for purposes other than 
the transaction of the public business? If so, state by whom, in what 
manner, and by what authority is it so used or occupied.—A small 
portion of the rotunda, together with a comparatively useless room in 
the basement, are used, by permission of the collector, rent free, by Mr. 
Dolliver, as restaurants for the accomodation of the clerical force, under 
the supposition that the prices charged shall be in proportion to the 
expense incurred; but from what we learn, the prices in question are 
not in accordance with said expenses, thereby debarring the clerks from 
taking advantage of the accommodation intended. 

111. When warehoused or unclaimed goods are stored in the custom¬ 
house or other building owned or occupied by the Government, are the 
ull rates of storage customary at the port charged and collected upon 
uch goods before delivery?—Yes. 

Question 30. 

We find that, in respect to applications for the entry of merchandise on 
pro forma invoices, substantially the same carelessness exists at this port 
as at New York, to which attention was called in a report of the com¬ 
mission under date of August 5 of this year. An examination of all 
the pro forma invoices received here during the past year shows that, 
as a rule, little or no care has been exercised by the deputy collector in 
ascertaining the reasons for the non-production of a certified invoice, 
and in no instance do we find that an importer has been questioned 
under oath or required to produce letters or papers in his possession or 
under his control to assist the appraiser’s officers in ascertaining the 
dutiable value of the merchandise, as provided by section 11 of the act 
of June 22, 1874. In many instances no oath of any sort was taken, the 
form of application not being filled out with even the date, character of 
the goods, name of the ship, or signature of the importer. One firm, 
engaged in the importation of kid gloves, appears to have entered a very 
large proportion of its goods on such invoices, and the fact that the cer¬ 
tified invoices and triplicates covering such importations have generally 
been received within a few days after entry was made favors the belief 
that such certified invoices have, as a rule, been delayed purposely in 
order to evade a penal duty in case the value of the goods was advanced 
more than 10 per cent, by the appraiser. 

The statement by Deputy Collector Munroe (pages 1 to 8 of the tes¬ 
timony herewith transmitted) will show in what manner this business 
has heretofore been conducted at this port. During the year 1884 there 
were eight hundred and eighty-four entries by pro forma invoices where 
the goods exceeded $100 in value. 


112 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Question 99. 

The collector and other principal officers give their personal attention 
to the business of their respective offices when in attendance. The col¬ 
lector is at his office constantly during business hours, and this is also 
true of the appraiser, except that within the past few weeks he has been 
confined to his bed with sickness. The naval officer, until quite re¬ 
cently, lias, as a rule, been present at his office five of the six working 
days of the week. He resides in New Hampshire, where he has usually 
spent one day in each week besides Sunday. The surveyor, as will 
appear from his own statement, (pages 128 and 129 ol printed testi¬ 
mony,) has recently been absent from his office a very considerable por¬ 
tion of his time. This has been due to ill health, occasioned by serious 
wounds received in the war. We have been informed by the collector 
and others that these absences have been more frequent and cover a 
longer period of time than his testimony shows. It is to be regretted 
that he has been compelled to absent himself so much of the time. 
Were he able to devote the whole or even the principal part of his time 
to the duties of the office, the work might, as we believe, be reorganized 
so as to dispense with the services of the present chief clerk and assist¬ 
ant, who is now receiving a salary of $2,000. But this is by no means 
the most important consideration. Such absenteeism on the part of the 
chief officer not only necessitates the employment of an additional lorce, 
but is productive, by its example, of demoralization among his subor¬ 
dinates. 

Collectors Department .—In the collector’s office proper there is at 
present no more force than is necessary to properly perform the work 
of the office. 

In the first division, having charge of the inward foreign entries for 
consumption, under the control of Deputy Collector M. A. Munroe, we 
find the force, with two exceptions, efficient and creditable, and not in 
excess of the requirements of the service. The exceptions are as follows: 
Mr. J. Duncan, one of the liquidating clerks, is of somewhat advanced 
age; has been in office twenty-five years; is very excitable, and easily 
confused, and his efficiency, which was once of a high order, has become 
considerably impaired. (See Deputy Collector Munroe’s statement, 
page 13, printed testimony.) The efficiency of the force would be 
promoted by putting a younger and more capable man in his place. 

Mr. J. L. Prouty, order clerk, has a very unsavory reputation as a 
borrower of money, which is never repaid. We learn that he borrows 
from importers and all others, indiscriminately, whenever he is able to 
do so. (See statement of Mr. Munroe, pages 14 and 15.) We believe 
that his example is pernicious; that his course reflects great discredit 
on the service, and that he should be replaced by a more exemplary 
officer. 

The second or warehouse division, under the charge of Deputy Col¬ 
lector J. H. Barnes, is in excellent condition. The clerks are competent 
and faithful, and their work is performed in a most creditable manner. 
The only change we would recommend in this division is that the 
services of Mr. George W. Warren, storage clerk, be dispensed with, 
and the work of his desk consolidated with that of Mr. S. Hartwell, who 
can, without difficulty, perform the labor now done by himself and Mr. 
Warren. 

In the third or navigation division, under the charge of Deputy Col¬ 
lector John L. Swift, there is more force than is required, and some of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 113 


the clerks are inefficient or of objectionable habits. The work of J. 
B. Withington’s desk can easily be performed by W. H. Collins, in ad¬ 
dition to his own, and the services of Mr. Withington dispensed with. 
In that case, Mr. Collins’s salary should be increased to $1,800 per annum. 
The work now performed by Frederick Grant (license and enrolment 
clerk) and William Devens can easily be done by Mr. Devens, and the 
services of Mr. Grant dispensed with. In that event we would recom¬ 
mend that Mr. Devens’s salary be advanced to $1,400 per annum. The 
work now performed by E. W. Lane and H. E. Stewart, statistical 
clerks, can be done by the latter, except the keeping of the a index- 
book of clearances,” which should be transferred to Mr. Collins’s desk, 
where it properly belongs, and the services of Mr. Lane dispensed with. 
This will reduce the expense of this division $4,000 per annum, with¬ 
out impairing the efficiency of the force. 

In the auditor’s office we find the work to be carefully and promptly 
done, with as small a force as possible. The auditor, Mr. Frederick 
Grant, is one of the most reliable and efficient of officers. In this office 
there is a vacant clerkship of $1,200 per annum, which the auditor says 
can remain vacant without detriment to the service. A debenture clerk 
and assistant were several years since placed in this office by the col¬ 
lector, and said debenture clerk (L. M. Barker) designated as chief clerk 
of the office, at a salary of $2,000 per annum. We are of the opinion 
that the compensation of this officer should be only $1,800, as his duties 
are simply those of “debenture clerk,” and his designation of ‘(chief 
clerk” only operated to increase his salary without adding anything to 
his duties, and no chief clerk is needed in this office. A saving of 
$1,400 per annum can be effected in this office by allowing the clerk¬ 
ship now vacant to remain so and reducing the salary of the debenture 
clerk as recommended. 

The Naval Office .—While we find that the business of this office is 
generally well conducted, and that its work results in great benefit to 
the service, through the discovery and correction of errors in liquida¬ 
tions, and as a wholesome check upon the collector’s office in many 
other respects, we are constrained to believe that the force employed is 
somewhat excessive. At our suggestion, the keeping of the daily record 
of rewarehouse entries, No. 857, has been dispensed with, as all the 
necessary information contained therein is found in other records of the 
office. By consolidating the work of other desks, which, from personal 
examination and from the expressed opinion of some of the most expe¬ 
rienced clerks in the office, we believe to be practicable, the services of 
one clerk at least may be dispensed with. We only hesitate to recom¬ 
mend a still further reduction through fear that it might result in retard¬ 
ing the business of the public. The clerks in this office are generally 
faithful and efficient. We are advised by the naval officer that he con¬ 
siders Frederick S. Powers inefficient and in a measure unreliable; and 
we therefore recommend that his services be dispensed with. This will 
result in a reduction of expense of $1,600 per annum. We made par¬ 
ticular inquiry as to the officers and employes in this department, which 
inquiry fully sustains the character of all except two, to wit, Mr. Pow¬ 
ers, above mentioned, and Charles Bobinson, a liquidating clerk. As 
to the latter, the naval officer stated that he had reason to believe that 
he occasionally partook of intoxicating liquors to excess, but not during 
office hours nor yriien engaged in public business, and that his habits 
did not impair his ability to efficiently discharge his duties. In fact, 

8 a 


114 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


he said of him that he was remarkably accurate, intelligent, and indus¬ 
trious, with especial capacity for despatch, and a thorough familiarity 
with the law and regulations, and thoroughly reliable. 

The Surveyor's Office .—We are unable to recommend any reduction of 
the force employed in this office, except as mil be suggested further on 
in this report in connection with the reorganization of the weigher’s 
force. Should our recommendation on that subject be adopted, the ser¬ 
vices of Charles H. Gray, admeasurer of vessels, can be dispensed with 
and his work transferred to John T. Hadaway, now employed in the 
examination and verification of dock-books and weighers’ returns. Mr. 
Hadaway was formerly admeasurer of vessels, and is one ol the most 
reliable and efficient clerks in the custom-house. In the force employed 
under the direction of the surveyor, however, we believe that a change 
of organization is imperatively demanded in the interests of economy 
and efficiency, and we therefore make the following recommendations: 

1. As to inspectors: At present there are eighty-four inspectors of 
customs, thirty of whom are distributed into twelve districts, and only 
fifty-four are available for general duty. The result of this system of 
districts at this port is that a large portion of the force of inspectors is 
permanently located in the several districts, whether their services are 
needed there or not, and it frequently happens that, while the work in 
some of these districts is greater than can be properly attended to by 
the officers employed there, the officers in the other districts have little 
or nothing to do. Under the existing system, these districts are used 
as harbors of refuge for such of the inspectors as are feeble, incompe¬ 
tent, or from any cause incapacitated. The work, during the greater 
part of the year, in some of the districts is scarcely more than nominal. 
We are of the opinion that the force of inspectors can be far more 
efficiently utilized from one central point. The necessity for the ser¬ 
vices of inspectors at any particular locality in the port is always~known 
to the surveyor or his deputy, and the force should be distributed from 
his office as occasion demands. It will be found necessary, no doubt, 
to permanently station inspectors at a few points, such as wharves or 
depots where bonded merchandise is constantly being received or 
transferred, or goods laden on which a drawback is claimed; but, aside 
from this, all inspectors should be under the immediate control of one 
head. By the abolition of the district system the force of inspectors 
can be reduced from eighty-four to seventy-six, and its efficiency at the 
same time greatly increased. The surveyor, in his testimony herewith 
transmitted, (pages 77 and 88,) gives the names of eight inspectors who, 
from various causes, are not competent to discharge the general duties 
of their office, but have been for the most part transferred to districts. 
It will be observed that the deputy surveyor in his testimony (pages 
167-180) makes substantially the same statement and names the same 
officers. From the statements of the surveyor and his deputy, it ap- 
pears that most of these officers, so named by them as inefficient, have 
lost their health in the performance of their duties after years of faith¬ 
ful service, or through wounds received in the Army. The names of 
these inspectors are as follows: N. H. Brown, Aaron Barton, G. A. 
Brown, Geo. A. Butler, Henry B. Going, Geo. W. Barker, E. S. Buffum, 
Joseph E. Dawley. 

In addition to the eight inspectors above named, the surveyor and 
assistant surveyor mention the following as inefficient for substantially 
the same reasons: Elbridge Harris, Ethan C. Bing, and Andrew Tower; 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


115 


ancl we would recommend that they be replaced by more efficient men. 
This reorganization will result in a reduction of salaries amounting to 
$11,680 per annum. 

Night-inspectors: The force of night-inspectors was reduced from 
forty-two to twenty-five upon a recommendation of a commission that 
examined the custom-house in October, 1882. That commission further 
recommended, as an improvement in the efficiency of the force, that 
twelve of these night-inspectors be detailed to act in a detective capac¬ 
ity, under the direction of the captain of the night-watch, conducted 
as the detective force of the city is conducted. On May 26, 1883, the 
collector, by direction of the Department, submitted a plan for such 
reorganization. This plan contemplated twenty-five night-inspectors, 
without reference to the detail of the twelve men for detective duty as 
suggested by the commission. On October 22, 1883, the collector, 
without any further conference with the Department, so far as we can 
find from the records of his office, directed the surveyor to detail 
twelve night-inspectors, whom he named, to report for duty to Special 
Inspector Emery. The surveyor, in a letter of the following day, re¬ 
ported that he had detailed the twelve men as directed, but reminded 
the collector that night-inspectors were by the regulations subject to 
the orders of the surveyor, and inquired whether these men, so de¬ 
tailed, were entirely withdrawn from his control. This letter of the 
surveyor was, on the day of its receipt, forwarded to the Department 
by the collector, who, in his letter of transmission, requested that the 
designation of these officers be changed from “ night-inspectors ” to 
“detectives.” The Department, in its reply of October 31, 1883, stated 
that it knew of no objection to a detail of the employes named for the 
purpose of performing the special duty indicated, but declined to accede 
to the collector’s request to change their designation. We find that 
those twelve men have not been employed in the manner contemplated 
by the commission, but, on the contrary, that they have, as a rule, been 
employed during the day, and not at night, and have been permanently 
assigned to routes or districts, one of the features formerly reported as 
most objectionable. More or less friction has occurred between these 
men and the day officers, arising, undoubtedly, from the understanding 
that the latter were under surveillance. Without discussing the pro¬ 
priety of employing one officer to observe and report to his superiors 
the official conduct of another, or the benefits that may have resulted 
from the change, (about which there is some diversity of opinion among 
the members of this commission,) we are unanimously of the opinion 
that the recommendation of the commission of 1882 should be carried 
out, and that the collector should be instructed to direct the surveyor 
to place these officers under the supervision of some competent chief, 
who should report to the surveyor, and that such force, so organized, 
should, in the work of detecting and preventing smuggling, be operated 
from one central point and be employed at night, and, as the necessities 
of the service may require, in the daytime. We believe that by such a 
method much more good may be accomplished than by the employ¬ 
ment of a much larger number of officers upon regular routes or dis¬ 
tricts, and with established hours of service. Both these and the day- 
inspectors should be given to understand that the object of their ser¬ 
vices is a common one, and that they should seek by all reasonable 
means in their power to aid and assist each other. We would suggest 
that Inspector Emery, whom we find to be a very efficient and com¬ 
petent officer, be left with the collector for such special service as may 


116 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


be necessary, and that Inspector Linehan, of the night force, be put in 
charge of that portion of the night force thus returned to the surveyor. 

2. As to weighers: At present there are three weighing districts at 
this port. Each of these districts is under the charge of a weigher, at a 
compensation of $2,000 per annum, who has control of the assistant 
weighers assigned to the district. Here again, as in the case of the in¬ 
spectors, it frequently happens that the force in one of these districts is 
overworked, while in another there may be little to do. From a care¬ 
ful investigation of the subject, we believe that greater economy and effi¬ 
ciency can be secured by abolishing these districts and placing the 
whole force under the charge of one weigher, and that his compensation 
be fixed at $2,500 per annum, in view of the increased responsibility. 
This should be done for substantially the same reasons as those set forth 
in respect to the inspector’s force. The force of weighers now employed 


here is as follows: 

Three weighers, at $2,000 per annum. $6, 000 00 

Three assistant weighers, at $4 per diem. 4, 380 00 

Fifteen assistant weighers, at $3.50 per diem. 19,162 50 

Fourteen assistant weighers, at $3 per diem. 15, 330 00 


Total. 44, 872 50 


The three weighers have the general superintendence, each in his own 
district, of assistant weighers, the employment of laborers, care of weigh¬ 
ing implements, and making returns of weight. The three assistant 
weighers, now employed at $4 per per diem, do very little weighing, but 
have their time occupied in looking after or superintending the other 
assistant weighers. Under the system proposed by us, and approved 
by many of the most intelligent and practical officers at this port, only 
one chief weigher would be required for the general supervision of the 
force, the employment of laborers, custody of implements, and super¬ 
vision of returns. It would be advisable, on account of the geograph¬ 
ical situation of this port, to retain some features of the present district 
system, so that one of the assistant weighers of the highest grade should 
be held responsible, under the general supervision of the chief weigher, 
for the accuracy of all weighing, the safe-keeping of implements, &c., 
in each of the present districts; but all other assistant weighers should 
receive their orders directly from the chief weigher, whose office would 
be in the custom-house, and who could, from that central point, distrib¬ 
ute his force more intelligently and effectively than is possible under 
the present system. Under the proposed change of organization, the 
number of assistant weighers can, without impairing the efficiency of 
the force, be reduced from thirty-two (32) to twenty-one, (21.) As the 
work of an assistant weigher is more laborious than that performed by 
an inspector, and requires as high a degree of intelligence, we would 
recommend that the compensation of the three assistants who are to act 
in a supervising capacity be fixed at $1,600 per annum, and the others 
at $4 per diem. The force would then be constituted as follows: 


One weigher. $2, 500 00 

Three assistant weighers, at $1,600... 4 800 00 

Eighteen assistant weighers, at $1,460. . 26,’ 280 00 

Tota l. 33,580 00 

Amount now paid. $44, 872 50 

Amount under proposed organization. 33 ? 56 O 00 

Amount saved per annum under proposed organization. 11, 292 50 



















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 117 


At present there is a clerk employed in the surveyor’s office, at a 
salary of $1,700 per annum, whose duties consist in examining and veri¬ 
fying the correctness of the weighers’ dock-books and returns. In the 
event of the reorganization of the weighers’ force as recommended, we 
would advise that the work now done by him be performed by a chief 
clerk of the weighers’ office, whose duties should also consist in super¬ 
vising the clerical work of that office. 

Of the present chief weighers, Mr. Parks is the most competent, all 
things considered, to assume charge of the force of assistant weighers 
in case of the proposed reorganization • but the man who, of all others, 
is peculiarly fitted for the position, both by natural qualifications and 
experience, is Mr. A. A. Sherman, recently promoted from a clerk¬ 
ship in the surveyor’s office to gauger. Mr. Sherman was for many 
years an assistant weigher, and has been for six years past employed in 
the surveyor’s office examining and verifying the dock-books and re¬ 
turns of weighers. He has during that time had a supervision of the 
weighers’ force, and has, in our opinion, a more thorough knowledge 
of the workings of the force, and more practical business sagacity, than 
any officer in the weighers’ and gaugers’ department at this port with 
whom we have come in contact. 

We feel that we should be falling short of our duty if we failed to call 
special attention to the condition of the surveyor’s department at this 
port. The surveyor, Gen. A. B. Underwood, whom we believe to be a 
thoroughly conscientious gentleman, of the strictest integrity, is, by rea¬ 
son of his physical infirmities, compelled to be absent from his office a 
great portion of the time, thus preventing him from giving the per¬ 
sonal attention necessary for the efficient conduct of the office. Mr. 
Moulton, the deputy surveyor, who is a most estimable man, of the 
highest standing for honesty and integrity, is, however, lacking in ex¬ 
ecutive ability, and possessed of but little natural adaptation for the 
duties of his office. The chief clerk and assistant to the surveyor, Mr. 
John A. Thomas, is, as we learn, in the habit of borrowing money and 
purchasing goods apparently without intending or endeavoring to pay. 
This, in many instances, is susceptible of proof, and among the sufferers 
are, as we are credibly informed, a Government truckman, an inspector 
of customs, and others dependent upon him for official favor. ’This is 
notorious in the surveyor’s office, as well as is the fact that he has, at 
times, left his desk to dodge his creditors; at one time for two hours 
together. The discredit brought upon the service when an officer in 
the receipt of a high salary borrows money or incurs debts, especially 
from subordinates, which he does not intend to pay or does not pay, is 
too apparent to require discussion. It is evident that the management 
of the office under such principal officers is not efficient and is calcu¬ 
lated to demoralize the force. 

Appraiser's Office .—The law provides that at this port, as well as a 
few others, there shall be two appraisers. Until recently there have 
been two here ; but at present, through the death of Mr. Darrah in the 
early part of this year, there is only one, Mr. Bice. 

We believe that the policy of appointing two appraisers of equal and 
concurrent authority at one port is an erroneous one. It inevitably 
leads to a divided responsibility and a conflict of authority, just as the 
appointment of two captains to one ship or two generals to one army 
would do. 

We can see no reason why there should be two appraisers at Boston, 


118 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and New Orleans, while New 
York, where the greater portion of the revenue from imports is col¬ 
lected, has hut one, and think the attention of Congress should be called 
to this matter. 

We would recommend that the vacancy now existing in one of these 
offices here should be allowed to remain, as has been the case at Phila¬ 
delphia and New Orleans for many years, and that an additional assist¬ 
ant appraiser be appointed, at a compensation of $2,500 per annum. 

We regret to state that the health of Mr. Bice, the remaining ap¬ 
praiser, has, since our investigation began, been in such a precarious 
condition that we have not been able to confer with him in regard to 
the affairs of his office. There are two assistant appraisers, Mr. Joslin 
and Mr. Jones. 

The former has heretofore exercised a supervision over the examiners 
of dry-goods, and has, in addition, performed the work of the exam¬ 
iner. 

His record is a most creditable one, and he is an officer of marked 
ability, integrity, and energy. Assistant Appraiser Jones has had super¬ 
vision of teas and .cigars, and has made all examinations for damage 
allowance, except on sugar. An examination of the records of the cus¬ 
tom-house convinces us that serious faults exist in the methods pursued 
by Mr. Jones in respect to damage allowances, as follows: His returns 
are frequently delayed, especially on certain classes of goods. This un¬ 
doubtedly results, in part, from the great number of claims upon which 
he has to pass, in addition to his other duties, which are largely in¬ 
creased at this time by reason of the death of one of the appraisers and 
sickness of the other. In a majority of cases he makes an average al¬ 
lowance covering the whole quantity upon which a warrant has been 
issued, which is in violation of article 490 of the Begulations of 1884. 
In one instance we find that an allowance of 100 per cent, on a case of 
glass goods of small value examined at the importer’s store was clearly 
excessive, but an investigation convinces us that it was due to the fact 
that the importer’s packers placed in this damaged case broken articles 
from other cases of the same invoice not covered by the damage war¬ 
rant, and that Mr. Jones failed to discover this fact. Mr. Jones is a 
man of ability and courage in the discharge of his official duties, and, 
so far as we can learn, is of the strictest integrity. He was formerly a 
wholesale tea merchant, and his knowledge of that commodity as well 
as general merchandise is of the highest order. He lacks method, how¬ 
ever, in the management of his office, and, in certain classes of goods, 
relies rather too much, in our opinion, on the results of the auction or 
private sales of damaged goods as reported to him by the auctioneer or 
merchant, instead of exercising his own judgment and expert knowledge. 

A few years ago Mr. Jones’s intemperate habits led to a complaint to 
the Department, and an investigation by the special agent in charge at 
this port. It was found that Mr. Jones had reformed in this respect, 
and, aside from rumors as to an occasional lapse from sobriety out of 
office-hours, we can find no evidence that Mr. Jones is now an intem¬ 
perate man, or that his habits interfere with the discharge of his duties. 
His manners are somewhat curt and sometimes discourteous, so that 
some of his associates are reluctant to come into personal contact with 
him. Examiner Grafton is a most estimable gentleman, but he is well 
advanced in years, his mental processes are slow, and his efficiency as 
an examiner is very limited. He examines dress-goods, and for many 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 119 


years, as we learn, has made no advances in the values of such goods, 
though other examiners, of substantially similar merchandise, have ad¬ 
vanced numerous invoices. In the examination of dry-goods, it is of 
vital importance to secure the services of the best talent attainable, and 
we would, therefore, recommend the removal of Mr. Grafton, and sub¬ 
stitution of a younger and better qualified officer. 

With the foregoing exceptions, we find the officers connected with the 
appraiser’s department intelligent, faithful, and zealous. Our exami¬ 
nation convinces us, however, that the proper dispatch of business, and 
economy of time, requires the services of at least five additional openers 
and packars to enable the examiners to work to advantage. At New 
York it has been found that at least two openers and packers are re¬ 
quired by an examiner of dry or other, package goods to facilitate busi¬ 
ness. Here there are ten examiners of such goods, and only eleven 
openers and packers. Three openers and packers are now urgently 
needed in the dry-goods room, one by the examiner of crockery and 
another by the examiner of fancy and miscellaneous goods. We, there¬ 
fore, recommend the appointment of five additional officers of this grade, 
at a compensation of $840 per annum. 

Much complaint has been made by the importers concerning the en¬ 
forcement of the regulations governing the delivery of examination 
packages. We find that for many years past the practice here has been 
substantially the same as it was at Philadelphia prior to Synopsis, 7047 ; 
and, as will be seen elsewhere in this report, there remains over $20,000 
of uncollected duties at this port, and the fact that this remains uncol¬ 
lected is largely due to the disregarding of the regulation above referred 
to. Many of the importers think their business will be seriously inter¬ 
fered with by a strict enforcement of the regulations. 

We are, however, of the opinion that they are in a great measure 
unnecessarily alarmed, and that instances of hardship on this account 
will be of rare occurrence, and could be avoided if the collector is au¬ 
thorized to exercise a reasonable discretion as to the delivery of exam¬ 
ined packages; as, for instance, when various descriptions of merchan¬ 
dise are embraced in an invoice and a change of rate or an advance in 
value is to be reported as to a portion of the merchandise only, if there 
is no reason to suspect a fraudulent intent, and if the importer is 
known to be of good character and of undoubted responsibility, should 
the hardship that would be likely to result from the detention of all 
the packages under the regulations appear to be such as would warrant 
especial consideration, the collector might permit the delivery of those 
packages as to the contents of which no change or advance is reported 
at once upon receiving the partial report of the appraiser to that effect. 
Aside from this, we cannot recommend any modification of the regu¬ 
lations that would be practicable and at the same time safe. 

In the closing hours of our examination our attention was called to 
what we fear, on such investigation as we have been able to make, 
may have been an act of injustice towards a worthy, honest, and efficient 
officer. It appears that in' May, 1882, Assistant Weigher John McCarty 
was suspended from office by the surveyor, as the result of an investi¬ 
gation made by that officer in the absence of Mr. McCarty, and shortly 
afterwards discharged from the service by the collector. The grounds of 
this action was the alleged careless and unfaithful weighing of sugar by 
Mr. McCarty at the Standard Befinery in this city, and the testimony was 
mainly that of laborers who had been working with Mr. McCarty, and 


120 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


who were unfriendly to him because he had overworked them, as they 
believed. After his suspension, Mr. McCarty appears to have demanded 
the fullest and most searching investigation into his official conduct, 
but such an investigation was never accorded him. As soon as the 
facts in the case came to our knowledge, we sent for McCarty, and 
learned from him many facts of interest to the Government. He feels 
keenly the disgrace put upon him by the action of the surveyor and 
collector, and has been sadly broken down by it. As the result of our 
interview with him and our subsequent inquiries, we are impressed 
with his honesty and ability, and believe that he is in possession of facts 
that would be of immense value to the revenue, but which he feels at 
liberty to make public only in connection with his own vindication. In 
view of these facts, and for the reason that we have not the time to 
investigate this matter, we recommend that an investigation of Mr. 
McCarty’s case be ordered by the Department. 

After the investigation had been closed and arrangements made for 
departure, information came to us that Assistant Appraiser Jones had 
borrowed money from an importer and had been in the habit of col¬ 
lecting money from importers to defray the expense of carriage-hire and 
fare when called to make examination in distant' parts of the port or 
in places outside the port. 

The truth of this statement is admitted by Mr. Jones, and also the 
fact that $5 was so received by him in December last, and $3 in May 
last, in cases as to which the merchandise (machinery) has not yet been 
examined. 

This matter is left with the resident member of the commission to ex¬ 
amine into fully and report upon. 

Compensation .—The salaries paid to the clerks in the warehouse 
division are not in all instances commensurate with the services per¬ 
formed or required. 

From a careful examination of the work, we are of the opinion that 
the salary of Mr. S. Hartwell is excessive, and that it will still be 
excessive if to his present duties are added those of the storage clerk, 
Warren, as recommended. We do not consider Mr. Hartwell a very 
efficient clerk. He is a man of high literary attainments, but is not 
well calculated for clerical work. His salary is $1,600 per annum. 

Wm. W. Castle, one of the most efficient clerks, is employed in a 
difficult and laborious work, at a compensation of only $1,000 per annum. 

The compensation of Geo. W. Miller, one of the most accurate liqui¬ 
dating clerks, is inadequate. He receives now $1,400 per annum. 

The compensation of C. F. Stan wood is also inadequate. His present 
salary is $1,200 per annum, while A. B. Stearns, another storage clerk, 
receives $1,600 per annum, although the work of his desk is but little 
more difficult or important. 

We would respectfully recommend that the compensation of Mr. 
Hartwell be changed from $1,600 to $1,400 per annum, and that an in¬ 
crease in compensation be made, as follows: Wm. W. Castle, from 
$1,000 to $1,200 per annum; Geo. W. Miller, from $1,400 to $1,600 
per annum; and C. F. Stanwood, from $1,200 to $1,400 per annum. 
Considering the duties performed by the following-named clerks in the 
naval office, we are of the opinion that their compensation should be 
decreased, as follows: Tristram Talbot, assistant liquidating clerk, from 
$1,800 to $!,600 per annum; Geo. S. Shute, book-keeper, from $1,600 
to $1,400 per annum. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 121 


We have already recommended a reduction of $200 per annum in the 
salary of L. M. Barker, at present designated as chief clerk and debent¬ 
ure clerk in the auditor’s office. The compensation of Examiner 0. W. 
C. Rhoads, in the appraiser’s office, should be increased from $1,600 
to $1,800 per annum. This advance, we understand, was contemplated 
by the commission of 1882, and its propriety is recognized by the ap¬ 
praiser and assistant appraiser, as well as by # this commission. 

For the services rendered by John A. Thomas, in the surveyor’s office, 
made necessary, as we have said, by the absence of the surveyor, we 
think that $1,800 per annum is ample compensation. We recommend 
a reduction, in his case, of $200 per annum. 

There ard permanently employed at this port thirty-four laborers, at 
a compensation of $2 per day, of whom six are assigned to the running 
or conducting of the elevators at the appraiser’s stores, and five are per¬ 
manently detailed for other service, as will be seen by answer to Ques¬ 
tion 37. We would respectfully recommend that the laborers detailed 
to conduct the elevators be designated as ‘‘elevator-conductors,” and 
that those permanently detailed as clerks, messengers, &c., be designated 
in accordance with the work that they actually perform, and that the 
remainder be designated as porters. 

We would also recommend that, in consideration of the increased risk 
in the service of the elevator-conductors over that of the others, the 
compensation of the former be made $2.50 per day, as at New York. 

The reason for the recommendation as to the change of designation of 
the laborers permanently detailed to other duties is too apparent to re¬ 
quire comment. 

The purpose in recommending a change of the designation of the 
remainder is to distinguish them from laborers employed by the hour, 
who fire naturally of an inferior grade, and to more correctly designate 
their services, and especially to place them where we believe they of right 
belong—that is, among those who now receive the customary fourteen 
days’ leave of absence. 

. S Saving in expense of salaries recommended. 


By reducing the force : 

Geo. W. Warren, clerk, warehouse division..'. $1,200 

J. R. Withington, clerk, navigation division. 1, 800 

Frederic Grant, clerk, navigation division. 1, 400 

E. W. Lane, clerk, navigation division. 1, 400 

Fred. S. Powers, clerk, naval office. 1, 600 

Service of eight inspectors dispensed with. 11, 680 

Reorganization of the weigher’s department. 11, 290 

By reducing salaries: 

L. M. Barker, clerk, auditor’s office. 200 

John A. Thomas, clerk, surveyor’s office. ~00 

S. Hartwell, clerk, warehouse division. . 200 

Tristram Talbot, clerk, naval office. 200 

George S. Shute, clerk, naval office. 200 

Total. 31,370 


Increase recommended. 

Five additional openers and packers, at $840 each. $4, 200 

Increase in compensation ofW. H. Collins, clerk, navigation division. 200 

Wm. Devens, clerk, navigation division. 400 

C. W. C. Rhoads, examiner, appraiser’s division... 200 




















122 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


W. H. Castle, clerk, warehouse division. 

Geo. W. Miller, clerk, warehouse division. 

C. F. Stanwood, clerk, warehouse division. 

Increase in compensation of elevator-conductors, about. 


$200 

200 

200 

900 


Total. 


6 , 500 


Total decrease recommended. 
Total increase recommended 


$ 31 , 370 
6 , 500 


Net decrease in expenses recommended 


24 , 870 


The stenographer’s report of testimony taken by us is herewith en¬ 
closed. 


Respectfully submitted- 



N. W. BINGHAM, 

Special Agent. 
H. YVHEELER COMBS, 

77. S. General Appraiser. 

B. II. HINDS, 

C. H. LAPP, 

Special Agents. 


No. 2. 


Office of Special Agent, Treasury Department, 

New York, October 30, 1885. 

Sir : In obedience to instructions contained in Department letter of 
the 26th instant, directing us to report the result of our investigation 
at the appraiser’s store at this port, and thereupon proceed to our re- 
spective stations, we have the honor to report that since our return 
from Boston, on the 14th ultimo, a large portion of our time,has been 
consumed in investigating matters referred to us by the Department, 
but not included in our original instructions, and in rendering such as¬ 
sistance to the appraiser and general appraiser as they have from time 
to time required of us. 

Our investigation of the methods and personnel of the appraiser’s 
office has extended to nearly all the divisions in a general way, but has 
been more particularly confined to the first (or damage) division, and 
on that alone we are prepared fully to report at the present time. 

Our examination of the methods and system of transacting the pub¬ 
lic business in this division has been as thorough as possible. We 
hale not only called before us and carefully interrogated the assistant 
appraiser and each of the examiners as to the manner in which business 
is conducted and the methods resorted to for estimating and ascertain¬ 
ing the measure of damage, but we have made a personal inspection 
of the records of the office, and have, in some cases, accompanied or 
followed the officers at their work to acquaint ourselves with the abso¬ 
lute facts as to their ability and faithfulness. In addition to this, we 
have made diligent inquiry as to the reputation for ability and integ¬ 
rity of all the examiners connected with this division. 

When the present Appraiser, Mr. McMullen, assumed the duties of 












REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 123 


his office in April last, there were twenty-one examiners in the fifSlfj 
division; but by a judicious weeding-out process under his immediate V 
direction, the number has been reduced to thirteen , and no embarrass- I 
ment to the prompt transaction of public business has resulted. 

The force now employed in the first division, exclusive of clerks, f 
messengers, and openers and packers, is as follows: D. J. Moore, assist- ' 
ant appraiser; Jas. Freed, in charge of personal effects; W. H. Max¬ 
well, in charge of sample-room; Jas. McLaughlin, in charge of packed 
packages; Fred’k Cochen, in charge of wharf examinations and free 
goods; J. W. Jones, damage examiner; L. P. Bostwick, damage 
examiner; G. H. Townsend, damage examiner; G. W. Pratt, damage 
examiner; J. T. Hathorn, damage examiner; J. A. Sherer, damage 
examiner; Rodney Smith, baggage examiner at wharf; Jas. E. Welch, 
baggage examiner at wharf; John W. Corning, baggage examiner at 
wharf; A. R. Bonfield, sampler at wharf; J. A. Guischerdt, sampler at 
wharf. 

The goods examined in this division are as follows: Free goods on 
wharf and in store, consisting chiefly of hides, skins, &c., personal ef¬ 
fects, passengers’ baggage on shipboard or in public store, packed pack¬ 
ages containing various kinds of goods for various parties, sample 
packages and samples of all kinds, goods damaged on the voyage of 
importation, all seized goods, and all unclaimed goods. 

As the result of the most thorough investigation in the manner already 
referred to, we feel warranted in stating that, with one, or possibly two, 
exceptions, to be hereafter alluded to, the employes in this division are 
men of ability and integrity, and that the methods adopted for the trans¬ 
action of business are proper and legitimate. 

Assistant Appraiser Moore, with whom we have conferred, and who 
is an able and painstaking officer, speaks of these employes, with the 
exceptions above noted, as gentlemen of superior qualifications and 
trustworthiness. The exceptions referred to are Examiners Cochen and 
Welch. Certain rumors affecting Mr. Cochen’s integrity came to us 
early in our investigation of this division, and Assistant Appraiser 
Moore informed us that similar rumors had from time to time reached 
him. On further investigation in other directions, we learned the fol¬ 
lowing facts concerning Mr. Cochen: He was suspended from office 
January 2, 1883, on charges that he had accepted bribes in returning 
excessive damage-allowances. At the March term of court for 1883 he 
was indicted for accepting a bribe to return an excessive allowance for 
damage on a cargo of potatoes imported into this port by A. T. Heney 
&Son, on the steamship “Viking,” in April, 1882. He was at the same 
time indicted for removing from the custom-house without authority and 
altering a damage warrant covering an allowance on another lot of pota¬ 
toes, imported on the steamship “Crest” in April, 1882. It appears 
that an allowance of 50 per cent, had been made on a portion of this 
cargo by Mr. Cochen, and that, after the warrant had been regularly 
returned to the collector, it was in some irregular and surreptitious 
manner removed from the custom-house. 

We leftrn that the original warrant was not removed from the custom¬ 
house by Mr. Cochen, and that on a duplicate warrant, subsequently 
issued by the collector, the original having been lost or destroyed, Mr. 
Cochen returned a damage of 100 per cent, on a portion oi the cargo, 
based on a certificate issued by the board of health of this city, to the 


124 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


effect that the potatoes had been condemned and destroyed by their 
order. 

On the indictment for removing and altering public records Mr. 
Cochen was tried and acquitted at the May term of 1883. 

On the indictment for accepting the bribe in the case of the damage 
allowance on the potatoes imported, by A. T. Heney & Son, in the 
steamship u Viking,” a nolle prosequi was entered by the district attor¬ 
ney. The charge upon which this indictment was found was made by 
George T. Heney, son of Mr. A. T. Heney, in an affidavit taken by 
Mr. Charles N. Brackett, then a special agent of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment. A copy of the affidavit is herewith enclosed, marked Exhibit 
“A.” This affidavit was supplemented by one from Gregory Burke, 
an employ^ of the Heneys for occasional service as messenger. A copy 
of said affidavit is enclosed, marked Exhibit U B.” 

In respect to the $100 claimed by young Heney to have been given 
to Cochen at the store, and the $200 claimed to have been sent in a 
letter, there is a flat contradiction between the two parties. We had a 
long interview with Heney on this subject, and, from his appearance 
and statements at that interview, as well as from his reputation, as we 
gather it from other parties, we would be inclined to place very little 
confidence in his affidavit. 

As to the $85 which Heney states was sent to Cochen by the mes¬ 
senger, Burke, we find that the money was drawn from the bank by 
young Heney, on a check made payable to u Cochen or bearer.” The 
original check is now in the district attorney’s office, with the other 
papers in the case. Cochen claims that the check was so drawn by 
Heney to deceive his father as to the intended use of the money, and 
that Heney probably kept it himself. 

We were informed at the district attorney’s office that this indict¬ 
ment was “ nolle prosequied ,” because it was ascertained that there was 
no evidence to substantiate the charges. 

The suspension of Mr. Cochen from office was revoked in July 27,1883. 

We were informed by merchants who examined the potatoes im¬ 
ported, per steamship u Viking,” before they were landed, that, in their 
opinion, the damage allowance was not excessive, and, indeed, was not 
equal to the actual damage. 

We called upon Messrs. Woodworth & Son, commission merchants 
on Fulton street, near Water, and ascertained from them that prior 
to the arrival of the vessel they had conditionally agreed to handle the 
potatoes upon commission, but after examining them they declined to 
do so, as they were in such a bad condition that they would not ad¬ 
vance the freight and duty. 

A Mr. John E. Stowe made an offer for the cargo of potatoes which, 
although less than the freight and duty, was accepted as being the best 
obtainable, and the consignor lost the whole of the original value, 
which was about $27,000. 

The damage allowed by .Cochen was about 47 per cent, on part and 
less than that on the residue. 

We have been thus particular in inquiring into the facts coftcerning 
these transactions on account of the notoriety they obtained at the 
time, and the suspicions they created as to Mr. Cochen’s integrity. 

While we are unable to determine that Mr. Cochen was guilty of any 
official misconduct, we nevertheless believe, in view of the opinion en- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 125 


tertained and expressed to us by Assistant Appraiser Moore and other 
officials, that his further retention in office may be prejudicial to the 
good of the service. 

We have carefully investigated the official conduct of Mr. Welch, 
about whom some rumors had come to Assistant Appraiser Moore, and 
find that he is an officer against whose official conduct nothing discred¬ 
itable is known, though vague rumors, which appear to have been 
inspired by personal feeling, have from time to time been circulated 
concerning him. Appraiser McMullen, who has also investigated this 
matter, confirms our view. 

In making our investigations into the methods of conducting the pub¬ 
lic business in this division, we learn that where merchandise, particu¬ 
larly when entered as “free of duty,” is ordered to be examined on the 
wharf, it frequently happens that all the packages have been delivered 
to the importer before the examiner or his sampler can get to the wharf 
to examine the goods or take samples. There is only one examiner and 
two samplers to attend to the “ wharf examinations” of goods entered 
“free of duty” at this port. 

The number of invoices received at the appraiser’s office, covering 
such goods entered free of duty, will average from fifty to sixty per day. 
The wharves at which these goods are discharged are located on both 
the Hudson and East rivers in the city, along the Brooklyn and New 
Jersey water fronts, and at many of the islands in the bay and harbor. 
The invoices, in the usual routine of business, do not reach the exam¬ 
iner till late in the next day after entry; and we are informed that dis¬ 
charging inspectors have no orders to retain the goods on the wharf, 
except in the case of live animals. The bare statement of the facts 
will show that it is a physical impossibility for three officers to make 
so many examinations at points so far apart. It is not the practice 
at this port for the “ordering deputies,” in cases of wharf exam¬ 
inations, to note on the invoice the wharf at which the goods are 
to be discharged, and, except in the case of goods arriving by regular 
steamship lines, it becomes necessary for the examiner or sampler to 
ascertain through brokers, newspapers, or other available channels, 
when his services are required. Sampler Bonfield informed us that 
he had in his possession a large number of invoices covering goods 
imported in sailing-vessels from the British Provinces, and entered 
free of duty, and that, after searching some weeks, he had been un¬ 
able to ascertain where such goods had been landed. Even the dis¬ 
trict inspectors, to whom he had applied for information on the sub¬ 
ject, had no knowledge concerning the unlading of these vessels. There 
is certainly something radically wrong about such a system of doing- 
business, and the door is open to frauds upon the revenue. 

Article 137 of the Manual of Laws and Regulations for the guidance 
of customs inspectors, weighers, &c., issued in 1883, provides that “the 
inspector shall examine each and all of the packages, and if they are 
found different from or of greater value than is described on the per¬ 
mit, he shall retain possession of the packages,” and report the facts to 
the surveyor 5 but at this port we learn that it is impracticable for the 
inspector to perform this duty, in addition to his other work, even if 
he were a judge of values, and sufficiently familiar with the provisions 
of the tariff laws, to distinguish free from dutiable goods. 

The result of the insufficient force of examiners and samplers for 


126 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

such goods, and the absence of any regulation requiring inspectors to 
retain possession of them until they can be properly examined or 
sampled by the appraising officers, is that many invoices are returned 
to the collector with the indorsement “goods not found,” and then 
begins a long search for them, at the importers’ store or elsewhere. 

This condition of things is not confined to free goods coming under 
the first division, but we learn that similar troubles are experienced by 
examiners and samplers in other divisions, where dutiable goods are 
ordered to be “examined on the wharf.” 

We believe that wharf examinations ought to be avoided whenever 
the goods are of such a character as to make the removal of examina¬ 
tion packages to the public stores practicable, and we would recom¬ 
mend that inspectors be ordered, in all cases, to retain possession of 
goods on which wharf examination has been ordered, until the apprais¬ 
ing officers have examined or sampled them. 

To make such a regulation practicable, it will be necessary to some¬ 
what increase the force of samplers; but even that is preferable to the 
present loose system of doing this work. 

We had designed conferring with the collector and surveyor on this 
subject, but our limited time does not render this course practicable. 

It had come to our attention that very considerable differences exist 
between the several large ports in the classification for duty of sugar by 
means of the polariscope. 

Between the ports of Boston and Philadelphia, for instance, we found 
variances of two and three degrees on sugars from the same plantation 
and of the same mark. 

On a large cargo this would result in a difference in duties of from 
$3,000 to $5,000. We had submitted test samples of sugar to the ap¬ 
praisers at the ports of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, and were 
hoping to ascertain the cause of these variances and secure harmony at 
the various ports in the polariscopic results. We beg to commend this 
important matter to the serious attention of the Department. 

"""'We had also made inquiry into the discrepancies between the large 
ports in the matter of the value and classification of foreign wools— 
particularly those known as i4 Donskoi wools”—and were in communi¬ 
cation with the officials and reputable importers at the large ports on 
this subject. We have learned enough to convince us that gross under¬ 
valuations at all the ports have existed for years, through a misappre¬ 
hension on the part of the customs officials of the true value of the 
currency on which the traffic is actually based. 

These wools are entered as “ washed wools, ” valued at less than 12 
cents per pound. A chemical analysis was made at the laboratory con¬ 
nected with the appraiser’s office, and the chemist reports that they 
are “ scoured wools.” This subject is now being carefully investigated 
by the appraiser of this port. 

We have discovered differences in classification between the several 
ports on some lines of goods and have called the attention of the 
proper officers thereto. Some of these errors have been corrected, and 
others doubtless will be in the near future. 

In addition to the foregoing, we had received from various importers 
and others charges, both verbal and written, affecting the official con¬ 
duct of several of the employes in the appraiser’s office at this port 
On these we were suspending action until, in our investigations, we 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 127 


reached the divisions in which these officers were located. We have 
left these charges with Special Agent Hinds, who has been directed by 
the Department to remain on duty at the public stores. 

At this port, both before and since our visit to Boston, the work of 
this commission has, from time to time, been temporarily retarded by 
calls made on some of its members, for various pressing emergencies, 
by the general appraiser and the appraiser of the port. While regret¬ 
ting the delay to the work strictly within the scope of our instructions, 
occasioned by such interruptions, we nevertheless realized that the mat¬ 
ters thus brought before us were important, and therefore yielded to the 
wishes of the officers referred to in giving to such subjects the consid¬ 
eration requested. 

We desire, in closing our labors, to acknowledge the uniform courtesy 
with which we have been treated by the customs officials with whom 
we have come in contact, both at this port and Boston, and the readiness 
with which they have adopted any suggestions tending to promote the 
efficiency of their force or add to the security of the revenue. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servants, 

H. WHEELER COMBS, 

General Appraiser. 

B. H. HIRDS, 

C. H. LAPP, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


[Enclosure.] 


A. 

Geo. T. Heney, being sworn, deposes and says: I am now engaged in the com¬ 
mission business with my father, Mr. A. T. Heney, 25 Coentie’s Slip, New York. I 
remember a consignment or 48,000 bushels of potatoes, which arrived at this port, via 
steamship u Viking,” during the month of April last. They were entered by me on 
the 15th of said month. I made an application for damage allowance on the date of 
entry. A day or two subsequently I called at the appraiser’s stores and learned that 
the appraisement of said cargo of potatoes had been assigned to Examiners Frederick 
Coclien and D. W. Smith. Several days subsequent to my visit to the appraiser’s stores, 
Cochen called at my office in Coentie’s Slip, and, in reply to my inquiry as to why he 
had not made his return of the aforesaid cargo, he replied that he had so much to do, 
having several other cargoes, and that I could not expect him to work for nothing. I then 
handed Cochen a one-hundred-dollar bill, which was in an envelope; he, taking it from 
the envelope and looking at it, remarked in a sneering manner, ‘ ‘ That is a very small 
amount, ’ ’ but put it in his pocket. After the aforesaid visit of Cochen, I called at the 
public stores repeatedly to learn whether his return was in or not, but without success. 

On or about the 16th of May last, Cochen called at my office and said that he wanted 
five hundred dollars, intimating that when he received that amount he would com¬ 
plete his return on said cargo. I demurred at this, and told him I did not think I 
could give him so much, as the parties abroad, in my opinion, would not stand it. 
Several days having passed by without my hearing from Cochen, or that he had as yet 
made a return for said cargo, I enclosed to his address by post to No. 234 Keep street, 
Brooklyn, two one-hundred-dollar bills, and requested him to hurry up the return on 


128 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


said cargo. 1 did not register said letter, as Cochen told me lie would receive no money 
either by check or registered letter. The payment of the two hundred dollars as above 
proved successful, as Cochen made the return within a few days. Subsequently I sent 
Cochen eighty-live dollars additional. This money was sent by my messenger, a man 
named Burke. Burke knew the letter contained money, as I showed it to him as I 
sealed it, and cautioned him to be careful of it. Burke told me he delivered the 
same at Cochen’s office, but, as Cochen was not in, he left it on his desk. 1 paid Cochen 
three hundred and eighty-five dollars in all, in order to get him to complete his returns 
on this cargo of potatoes, but Cochen considers me still in his debt for the difference be¬ 
tween three hundred and eighty-five and five hundred dollars, and has called at my 
office three or four times for the difference of one hundred and fifteen dollars, and said 
he did not think I was acting square with him. In my opinion, I do not consider that 
Cochen was entitled to a cent, but I am fully convinced that, without having made 
the aforesaid payments to him, I never would have succeeded in getting the return of 
said cargo from him. I will say here that the one-hundred-dollar bill handed Cochen 
by me was handed to him in the street, after we left my office. 

GEO. T. HENEY. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 22d day of December, 1882. 

CHAS. N. BRACKETT, 

Special Agent. 


[Enclosure.] 

B. 

Gregory Burke, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I live at 37 Front street, this 
city, and am occasionally employed as messenger by Messrs. A. T. & G. T. Heney, 
No. 25 Coentie’s Slip, this city. I remember going to the United States appraiser’s 
stores during the month of May last; can’t remember the date. I went there by 
direction of Mr. G. T. Heney, with a letter for Mr. Cochen; said letter contained 
money. I saw the money when placed in the envelope by Mr. Geo. T. Heney, but do 
not know how much it contained. I went to the public stores, inquired for Mr. Cochen ; 
was directed to a room in which he was said to be located, but did not find him in. I 
told the party in the room of whom I inquired that the envelope contained money, and 
was for Mr. Cochen, and he told me to lay it upon Mr. Cochen’s desk, which I did. I 
said to the person of whom I made the inquiries that the letter was from Mr. Heney to 
Mr. Cochen. 

GREGORY BURKE. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 26th day of December, 1882. 

CHAS. N. BRACKETT, 

Special Agent. 


I 1 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 129 


REDUCTIONS IN COST OF CUSTOMS SERVICE. 


No. 1. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. C., March 31 and April 1, 1885. 

Sir : You are hereby requested to report to me in writing, as soon 
as practicable, to what extent, in your opinion, the force employed in 
your district can be reduced without detriment to the public service; 
whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and, in gen¬ 
eral, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to 
you whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and the 
expenses curtailed. 

The present state of the appropriation for the current fiscal year re¬ 
quires your immediate attention to the above. 

Very respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 2. 

Custom-House, Albany, N. Y., 

Surveyors Office , April 16, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
March 31, 1885. For the past few days I have given the matter re¬ 
ferred to careful consideration, and have looked into the duties per¬ 
formed by the deputies and inspectors respectively. I have done this 
with a view of ascertaining if any reduction in the force in this office 
could be safely made. 

In my opinion, no reduction should be made at this time, just as 
navigation is being resumed, and the receipt of large quantities of 
lumber from Canada about to occur. There are over five hundred boats 
enrolled at this port. This, together with the lumber trade, requires 
the services of at least four inspectors. I am also often compelled, on 
receipt of telegrams, to send an officer to some distant point in my dis¬ 
trict to transfer bonded merchandise, this being made necessary by the 
disabling of a car. The duties in the office employ the time of the other 
deputies and inspectors. The custodianship of the Government build¬ 
ing at Albany adds somewhat to the labors of the employes of this office. 
At this time I have no changes to suggest in the method of doing bus¬ 
iness. I think the system is a well-developed one, and it works satis¬ 
factorily at this port. 

I am, respectfully, 

JOHN A. LUBY, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 

9 A 





130 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 3. 

Custom-House, Alexandria, Va., 

Collector’s Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir : In obedience to your instructions contained in circular letter of 
March 31, 1885, I have the honor to report the condition of this customs 
district and the force employed, with suggestions as to simplifying the 
methods of transacting the business and curtailment of expenses with¬ 
out apparent detriment to the service. 

First. The condition of the district was fully reported to the honor¬ 
able Commissioner of Navigation, under date of November 12, 1884, 
which was embodied in his report to the honorable Secretary of the 
Treasury, and is found on pages 76 and 77 in the First Annual Report 
of said Commissioner, to which I will ask permission to add that there 
is no salary connected with the office of collector of this district. His 
compensation is derived from the official fees, which are nominal, or 
less than $300 per year, under the present laws. 

I should also state that the collector was and is acting as custodian of 
public property, under direction of the Department, in the capacity of 
“agent of the Government.” This service has been rendered since 
June 1, 1881. The claim for this service was first made in January, 
1882, under section 2691, Revised Statutes, and is still pending, with a 
report from the chief architect in February last, which is on file in the 
appointment division of the Department, with the request that in case 
the Department has any question as to the value of the services ren¬ 
dered, an opportunity may be granted to show their value. 

The force employed is one deputy collector, at a salary of $1,200 per 
annum, and one inspector of customs, at $3 per day. 

The force employed and under the direction of the custodian is one 
janitor, at a salary of $500 per annum; one night-watchman and fire¬ 
man, at $30 per month. 

In my report to the Commissioner of Navigation above referred to, I 
suggested that the Potomac river be placed in one collection district, and 
in case that was done, both this district and Georgetown could be 
merged into one district, with a collector at Washington, and a deputy 
collector only at this port, as proposed to Congress by the late Secretary 
Folger. 

In the detail of business, it would seem to suggest that the maritime 
business could be mostly (and most naturally would be) done by an effi¬ 
cient deputy at this port, and all of the bonded business at Washington, 
where that business is only done at present. By such an arrangement 
the fees collected here could be deposited in Treasury; and if an in¬ 
spector is dispensed with, the saving to the Treasury would be $1,400 
or $1,500 dollars annually, including the official fees. 

Under the present method of reports, this office makes two weekly 
reports, forty-nine monthly, nineteen quarterly, two semi-annual, four 
annual. Many ot these are simply statements of no transactions. 

The business at this office and port is largely in the coasting trade. 

The importations, for present fiscal year to date, of commodities free 
of duty is valued at $25,753. The value of commodities dutiable $116 
only. 

The value of domestic products exported is $110,367. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 131 


The number of steam-vessels documented at this port is 15, and 64 
sailing-vessels. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. H. GEAY, 
Collector and Custodian. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 4. 

Custom-House, Alexandria, Va., 

Collectors Office, May 18, 1885. 

Sir : In obedience to Department instructions and your Circular No. 
77, dated March 31, 1885, I have the honor to report that the repeal of 
the law for the collection of all hospital-dues, which heretofore required 
close supervision over all domestic vessels, and also since the law known 
as the “shipping act” has come into full force, experience shows that 
a corresponding reduction in the force employed can be made, without 
detriment to the service. 

I therefore suggest that the deputy collector can attend to all the 
duties now performed by the inspector, whose services can be dispensed 
with at any day the honorable Secretary of the Treasury may so order. 

I have the honor to be, yours, 

J. H. GEAY, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 5. 

Custom-House, Annapolis, Md., 

Collectors Office April 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your printed letter of March 31, 1885, Form 77, as 
to the reduction of the force employed under my direction, I have the 
honor to say that in my letter to you dated April 1, 1885, I recom¬ 
mended the discontinuance of the office of revenue boatman at this port, 
as his services are very rarely, if ever, required by me. The only other 
officers'under me are a deputy at Town Creek, on the Potomac river, 
about sixty miles from here, whose services are indispensable, and an 
inspector of customs here, who also performs the duties of deputy col¬ 
lector in my sickness or absence. He only receives one pay for both 
positions. The services of this officer I deem also indispensable , look¬ 
ing to the best interests of the Government, the efficiency of the service, 
and the convenience of the public. 

Verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS IEELAND, 

Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 




132 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 6. 


Custom-House, Apalachicola, Fla., 

Collector’s Office , April 8 , 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department let¬ 
ter dated March 31, 1885. In reply, I have to state that the force em¬ 
ployed under my direction cannot be reduced without detriment to the 
public service, tor the reason that I have at present only one person 
under my employment, that is my present special deputy collector, 
and I fail to see whereby the methods of doing business can be simpli¬ 
fied any more than they are at present. 

I have no suggestions or recommendations to make whereby the effi¬ 
ciency of the service may be improved and expenses curtailed. 

I am, very respectfully, 

SETH M. SAWYER, 

Collector of Customs. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 7. 

Custom-House, Astoria, Oreg., 

Collector’s Office , April 20, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
letter of the 31st ultimo, requesting me to report to what extent, in my 
opinion, the force employed in this office can be reduced without det¬ 
riment to the public service. 

In answer thereto, I will state that the force, in my opinion, em¬ 
ployed in this office could not be consistently reduced, although the re¬ 
ceipts of the office are somewhat reduced from what they were last 
year. There are employed one special deputy and one deputy col¬ 
lector and inspector in the office, and two inspectors, which constitute 
the working force of the port. 

I am compelled to appoint temporary inspectors very often, and it 
would add to the efficiency of the office if an additional inspector was 
appointed, instead of being compelled to rely on any one that I find 
idle and unemployed. I will further state that, this being the first port 
of arrival for vessels destined for Portland, tug inspectors very fre¬ 
quently accompany vessels to that port, and during their abscence the 
deputy collector and inspector attends to the boarding of vessels, &c., 
although two officers should board and search each and every vessel 
on arrival, if done thoroughly. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. D. MERRYMAN, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 133 


No. 8. 

Custom-House, Baltimore, Md., 

Collector’s Office , June 13, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to the Department letter of March 31, 1885, request¬ 
ing me to report in writing to what extent the force employed under 
my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service, 
and whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and to 
make suggestions whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved 
and expenses curtailed, I would respectfully report that the total force 
employed under my direction as collector of customs is one hundred 
and ninety-two. Of these, there are under the immediate supervision 
and control of the surveyor of the port one hundred and two persons, 
and under the local appraisers twenty-one persons. There are seven 
storekeepers, who are paid by the proprietors of the bonded warehouses, 
and not by the Government. There are thirty-eight clerks employed 
in the various departments of the collectors office; among these are 
included the cashier and assistant cashier of customs, the auditor and 
assistant auditor, the storekeeper and acting superintendent of bonded 
warehouses at public store No. 1 and his clerk, and the clerk to the 
general appraiser, the duties of whose office are not confined to this 
port. The remaining twenty-four officers consist of my deputy collec¬ 
tors and of messengers, watchmen, laborers,' engineer, and foreman at 
public store. 

Of the twenty-four officers other than clerks, as heretofore mentioned, 
I think the office of deputy collector at Havre de Grace might be abol¬ 
ished without detriment to the public service. Since the abolishment 
of “ hospital-dues, ” the revenues from that office have greatly decreased, 
and amount at this time to a very small part of the compensation of 
the officer in charge. His duties, though always faithfully performed, 
are now about commensurate with his collections. 

Until recently, the clerks in this office have always been fully occu¬ 
pied. They are generally so now, but owing to the depression of foreign 
trade at this time, there are occasional periods when they are not fully 
employed. Under this state of facts, the force might be reduced, at 
least temporarily, as follows: Two officers might be dropped from class 
“ A,” one from class 1, one from class 2, and one from class 3. If this 
reduction is made, I would recommend that the following departments 
as now existing, viz., “marine,” “entrance and clearance,” and 
“record,” be consolidated into one department, to be called the “marine 
department,” The business transacted at each of these departments 
relates essentially to marine matters, and would be simplified and ex¬ 
pedited by the proposed consolidation. 

In answer to my request, the surveyor of the port has submitted to 
me, in writing, his views in reference to the reduction of the force in 
his office, so far as it relates to the officers appointed by the collector. 
I enclose his communication herewith, and ask to have it considered as 
a part of this report, as I concur in its conclusions, that said force can 
be reduced as follows: Three day-inspectors, four night-inspectors, 
(including one night-inspector recently deceased,) one assistant weigher, 
and one foreman of laborers. 

The local appraisers have also, at my request, submitted to me their 
views in writing, herewith enclosed as part of this report, in which they 


134 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


state that the force under their immediate supervision can be reduced 
as follows: One examiner and two laborers. I concur in this opinion. 

It will thus be seen that the force employed under my direction can 
be reduced as follows: In the collector’s office, one deputy collector 
at Havre de Grace, five clerks, two of class “A” and one each of 
classes 1, 2, and 3; surveyor’s department, three day-inspectors, four 
night-inspectors, one assistant weigher, and one superintendent ot labor¬ 
ers; appraiser’s office, one examiner, two laborers. 

The methods of doing business in this office, in my judgment, are cor¬ 
rect and satisfactory, and, with the exception of the consolidation ot the 
several departments heretofore mentioned, I would make no further 
recommendation on the subject. 

In conclusion, it is proper to state that the amount of duties collected 
at this port is not a fair criterion by which to judge ot the actual work 
done by our customs officers, or of the foreign trade of this city. There 
is a large amount of dutiable goods imported into Baltimore for im¬ 
mediate transportation to interior ports, the duties on which are not 
collected at this port. Again, there is an exceptionally large importa¬ 
tion of coffee and fruits here, which, though duty free, impose almost 
as much labor upon customs officers as though they were dutiable. 
Then again, the exportation of articles of domestic manufacture which 
are entitled to drawback is very large, and requires much attention and 
labor on the part of our officers. 

Yours, respectfullv, 

EDWIN H. WEBSTER, 

Collector . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 9. 

Custom-House, Baltimoee, Md., 

Surveyor’s Office, May 30, 1885. 

Sir : I would respectfully say that the copy of circular letter issued 
by the Treasury Department, dated March 31,1885, with your indorse¬ 
ment thereon of the 6th ultimo, requesting this office to make report 
embodying the views and recommendations of the surveyor of customs 
in the premises, so far as they relate to the officers and employes of his 
department, who hold their appointments from the collector of customs 
of this port, was duly received, and I would respectfully submit the 
following report: 

The Department request to be informed to what extent the force can 
be reduced without detriment to the public service. 

Day-inspectors .—In treating of this inquiry, I would respectfully state 
that there are forty-one day-inspectors who, are employed as follows: 
Three detailed with the collector of customs; one with the general 
appraiser of merchandise; one with the special Treasury agent; five 
who are performing district duty, under the surveyor of customs; four 
who are employed as debenture officers, under the surveyor of customs; 
two who are engaged as admeasurers of vessels, under the surveyor of 
customs; two who are assigned as boarding officers, under the surveyor 
of customs. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 135 


It will be observed from the foregoing that eighteen inspectors are 
specially detailed. Five of this number are on duty with customs 
officers other than the surveyor, who, in each case better understand 
than himself the necessity for their services. As to the remaining 
thirteen, who are serving under the immediate direction of the surveyor, 
the five who are performing district duty have supervision of the entire 
harbor during the day, embracing a frontage of about nine miles, each 
having charge of the operations of his appropriate subdivision and 
keeping the surveyor constantly informed of the condition of the ser¬ 
vice on their respective subdivisions, and reporting any violations of 
law or the non-observance of the regulations. 

The four who are employed as debenture officers have charge of the 
prompt forwarding of all merchandise arriving in bond for interior or 
other ports unappraised, known as immediate-transportation shipments, 
and the preliminary examination of all goods entered for export for the 
benefit of drawback, and the supervision of the lading of the same on 
board of outbound vessels. It should be remembered that these ship¬ 
ments entail a large amount of labor on these officers, from which no re¬ 
ceipts accrue to the revenue at this port. 

The tAvo Avho are engaged as admeasurers of vessels are kept daily em¬ 
ployed in connection Avitli the examination of the large number of ves¬ 
sels employed in the coastwise trade, and particularly those in the trade 
on the Chesapeake bay and its tributaries, and in admeasuring and com¬ 
puting the compartments of ocean steamers carrying immigrant passen¬ 
gers, &c. 

The tAvo aa ho are assigned for'boarding duty, and alternate, as this 
duty must be performed as the vessels arrive from foreign ports, with 
the utmost intelligence and circumspection day and night, are required 
to display the greatest possible vigilance. Their duties are manifold 
and highly important to the service, embracing the examination of the 
ship’s papers to see that the navigation and customs laws are observed 
and the regulations strictly complied withy place proper officers on board 
of A r essels and see that foreign mails are promptly delivered at the post 
office, &c., and also deliver manifests, &e., at the custonf-house, that 
vessels may promptly enter, &c. I therefore respectfully state that the 
serAdces of these thirteen officers, in my opinion, annot be dispensed 
with without serious detriment to the public serA 7 ice. 

It Avill be further observed that, after deducting the eighteen in¬ 
spectors above enumerated, there remain for discharging cargoes from 
vessels, &c., but tAventy-three officers, and any one familiar with the 
character of this duty cannot fail to appreciate its importance and the 
scrupulous care with which it should be performed; and I confess, 
I should be slow under any circumstances to suggest a course that 
would in any degree cripple this arm of the service. 

The discharging officers during much of the time since my incum¬ 
bency in office, noAV numbering more than three years, have been over¬ 
worked, and the cargoes discharged in this time could not have been 
handled by them had they not performed much of the labor by night; and 
furthermore, it has not been infrequent when these.officers Avere called 
to render material aid to other branches of the service, which are too 
slenderly equipped when business is active, to perform this duty. 
There was a marked instance of this kind within the last twelve 
months, Avhen the gauger’s department was required to gauge and make 
up the returns for more than thirty-seven thousand barrels of whiskey 
which Avere exported from this port. 


136 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Moreover, when the force is required to render more service than 
the men can comfortably bear, the percentage of sickness greatly in¬ 
creases, and the chief officers of the customs find themselves embar¬ 
rassed in directing the business of the port, and the public service is 
thereby almost unavoidably left to suffer. 

The recent falling off, however, in importations and the present stag¬ 
nant condition of trade, with no present prospect of its early revival, 
justify, in my opinion, a small reduction of the day-inspectors’ force, 
and I therefore recommend that three of said officers be dropped. 

Night inspectors .—The night-inspectors’ force is composed of one cap¬ 
tain, one lieutenant, and thirty-two officers. Four of these officers are 
detailed as roundsmen, and are indispensable as patrolmen on their re¬ 
spective districts. Several officers are nightly detailed with the revenue- 
cutter, which lies at the barding station, to keep watch for all incom¬ 
ing vessels, and to be placed on board of such as arrive from foreign 
ports. The remaining officers are distributed amongst vessels having 
on board dutiable cargoes and guarding merchandise on wharves, piers, 
and at warehouses, &c. 

The chief officers of this force have general supervision of the infe¬ 
rior officers, and make their respective circuits of the harbor during 
the night to see that the men are faithfully and efficiently performing 
their duty, with a view to prevent the smuggling of dutiable merchan¬ 
dise, or any interference with other goods requiring protection. The 
value of adequateness, as well as fidelity and efficiency, in this force 
cannot be overestimated, as it is at night-time the greatest danger is 
to be apprehended from wickedly-deposed persons who infest the 
marts of trade and seek for plunder. The same reasons, however, that 
induced me to recommend a reduction in the day-inspector’s force im¬ 
pel me to recommend a reduction of four officers in the night-inspec¬ 
tor’s force, embracing in this number the vacancy now existing on this 
force, which I think may be done without endangering the safety of 
the public service. 

Weighers ’ department .—The weighers’ department is made up of one 
weigher, twelve assistant weighers, three clerks, one messenger, one 
foreman of laborers, and a corps of laborers, numbering about forty 
men. The laborers are paid twenty-five cents per hour for the time 
actually employed. 

Whilst I am deeply sensible of the great importance of this branch 
of the service, and would scrupulously avoid any suggestion that would 
impair its thorough efficiency, yet, for the reasons already stated, I am 
constrained to recommend a reduction of one assistant weigher. I also 
recommend that the office of foreman of laborers be abolished, as this 
officer, as it appears to me, is of no practical value to the service, 
this appointment having been recently created by dropping an assist¬ 
ant weigher and appointing this officer instead at a less compensation. 

Gaugers’ department .—The gaugers’ department is under the man¬ 
agement of the United States weigher, who performs the duty of gauger, 
and is assisted by an assistant weigher, detailed as assistant gauger, and 
a temporary assistant gauger, who is employed only when his services 
are required and paid for the time thus employed. It would be impos¬ 
sible to conduct this department with less force than is now employed 5 
nor do I see how it could be run with less expense to the Government. 

Measurer of marble .—The measurement of marble is also under the 
supervision of the United States weigher, who is assisted, whenever 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 137 


necessary, by an assistant weigher who has been trained for this pur¬ 
pose. No reduction is possible in this department. 

What has been said in relation to the day-inspectors’ force in regard 
to being overworked is true of the weighers’ and gaugers’ departments, 
and this was especially the case during a large part of the year 1884 
and the early part of the present year. 

Methods of doing business , &c. —Secondly, as to whether the methods 
of doing business can be simplified, &c., whereby the efficiency of the 
service may be improved and the expenses curtailed: 

In response to this inquiry, I would respectfully say that this subject 
received the consideration to which its gravity entitled it immediately 
following my entry upon the duties of surveyor, and such changes as 
were deemed advisable (reference being had to the simplification of 
the methods of doing business, improvement in the efficiency of the 
service, and the curtailment of the expenses) w'ere from time to time 
made, and therefore I have no suggestions and recommendations to 
make, beyond those already submitted, whereby the efficiency of the 
service could be improved and the expenses curtailed. 

Very respectfully, 

HENRY CLAY NAILL, 

Surveyor of Customs. 


Hon. Edwin H. Webster, 

Collector of Customs , Port of Baltimore , Md. 


No. 10. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Appraiser's Office , June 4, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to your communication enclosing a copy 
of the letter of the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury in reference 
to a reduction of the force employed at this port, we think it due to this 
branch of the customs department to state briefly that the changes which 
have taken place during the past ten years have left this office with a 
force much less in proportion than any of the other branches of the cus¬ 
toms service at this port. 

In comparing the salaries of this office for the past year of 1884 with 
those of the year 1874, there has been a saving of the sum of $26,674.43, 
the salaries of 1884 being $56,274.43, and those of 1884 being $29,600. 

In this connection, there is also to be considered the additional fact 
that the total expenses of the appraiser’s office at this port, in compari¬ 
son with the total expenses for the collection of the revenue at this port, 
amount to 9.95 per cent., while the expenses of the appraiser’s office 
at the port of New York amount to 15 per cent., at port of Phila¬ 
delphia to 14 per cent., and at port of Boston to 10.88 per cent,, 
showing conclusively that the higher cost of collecting the revenue at 
this port, in comparison with some other ports, cannot be chargeable in 
any manner to this branch of the customs service at this port, 

A great many of our examinations are made at vessels, and also at the 
piers at Locust Point and Canton, some two or three miles distant from 
the custom-house and appraiser’s office, taking up a considerable portion 
of the time of different examiners in going to and returning from these 
several points. 



138 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

In the usual ordinary condition of the import trade, we think our 
present force is as small as it should be for the prompt dispatch of pub¬ 
lic business and a due regard for the public service. 

If, however, the present depressed condition of the mercantile inter¬ 
ests and of trade generally continues, we think one examiner and prob¬ 
ably two packers or laborers might be dispensed with temporarily and 
during the continuance of such depression. 

We do not at present see how the existing methods of doing business- 
can be simplified or improved so far as regards this office. 

Respectfully, 

HENRY H. GOLDSBOROUGH, 

JNO. L. LINTHICUM, 

Local Appraisers. 

Hon. E. H. Webster, 

Collector , Port of Baltimore. 


No. 11. 

Custom-House, Bangor, Me., 

Collectors Office , April 20, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to Department circular of the 31st ultimo, regarding 
the reduction of the force employed under my direction, I have to re¬ 
port as follows: 

It has been the practice in this district to employ an extra inspector 
a part or all of the time during the season of navigation, a period of 
time extending from near the middle of April to about the last of 
December of each year. 

While I have been in this office such extra man has been employed 
at Yanceboro’, in this district, for the most part, where most entries of 
importations are first made. 

Until last January the accommodations there have been entirely 
inadequate for the force employed, the customs office being a small 
building leased of the Maine Central Railroad Company, but under the 
direction of the Treasury Department I erected a customs building 
there last season, which was completed in January last. This building 
furnishes good facilities for doing the Government business, much of 
which is night-work, and is so arranged that at least one of the inspec¬ 
tors lives in it all the time, thus making it much easier to do the busi¬ 
ness, especially the night-work. 

After consulting with my deputy in charge at that place, he informs 
me that he can dispense with the extra inspector. I feel safe, therefore, 
in saying that we can drop the officer employed for the season of navi¬ 
gation, and shall, at most, only need an extra man for brief periods 
when there is an unusual pressure of business. 

I would state, in this connection, that the office at Winterport, in this 
district, was closed more than a year ago, and the officer there dis¬ 
missed, the business of that place being now done at Bangor. 

In regard to methods of doing business, I have at this time no sugges¬ 
tions to make. 

Very respectfully, 

D. F. DAVIS, 

Collector . 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 139 


No. 12. 


Custom-House, Barnstable, Mass., 

Collector’s Office , April 13. 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your circular letter of March 31, asking to what ex¬ 
tent the force employed in this district can he reduced, &c., I have the 
honor to report: 

That having, since my accession to office, secured the abolishing of 
the office of inspector at Harwich, the boatman at Barnstable, the boat¬ 
man at Provincetown, and the sale of the revenue-boats at Province- 
town and Hyannis, I feel that there are no unnecessary expenses now at¬ 
tached to this district, but would recommend that the salaries of certain 
deputies and inspectors, where duties and services are similar, be equal¬ 
ized, as follows: 

That the salary of the deputy collector and inspector at Hyannis be 
reduced from $2.05 per day, $748.25 per annum, to $1.35 per day, $492.75 
per annum; that the salary of the deputy collector and inspector at 
Falmouth (Wood’s Holl) be raised from $1.10 per day, $401.50 per 
annum, to $1.35 per day, $492.75 per annum. 

This would make the salaries of the deputies at Hyannis, Falmouth, 
Chatham, and the second deputy at Provincetown, the same, as they 
should be. 

Very respectfully, 

F. B. GOSS, 

Collector- 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


No. 13. 


Custom-House, Bath, Me., 
Collector’s Office , April 7, 1885. 


Sir : In reply to circular letter of March 31, 1885, I am directed by 
the collector (Jas. W. Wakefield, esq.) to say that, in his opinion, the 
force under his direction cannot be reduced without detriment to the 
public service. The methods of doing business cannot be simplified to 
meet the requirements of the Department. 

I am, sir, very respectfullv, 

JOHN H. RAYMOND, 

Deputy Collector- 


Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 14. 

Custom-House, Beaufprt, N. C., 

Collector’s Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to report, as directed by your circular letter 
of 31st ultimo, relative to the force employed under my direction, if it can 
be reduced without detriment to the public service, that there are at 
present employed in this office two deputy collectors, at a salary of 
$40 per month each. 




140 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The business of this office consists principally in the enrolling and 
licensing vessels. Imports are very rare of very small amount. 

I beg leave to say that, in my opinion, the services of these two 
deputies could be dispensed with; and the appointment of a deputy 
collector to be made a special deputy collector, at a salary of $30 per 
month, or such amount as you may approve, would be entirely suffi¬ 
cient for the management of the business of this office. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. C. DAVIS, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


No. 15. 


Custom-House, Beaufort, S. C., 

Collector's Office , April 6, 1885. 


Sir : In reply to your letter of March 31,1885, relative to the reduction 
of the force employed under me, I have the honor to call your attention 
to the letter of J. A. Camp, special agent of the Treasury Department, 
referred to in the Department’s letter of March 25, 1880, creating the 
offices of “inspector and deputy collector” and boatman at Port Royal, 
and to say that, in my opinion, the necessity for their services is as 
great now as it was then. 

At Coosaw there is an “inspector and deputy collector” and three 
boatmen. When the inspector goes off* in his boat upon an inspection 
tour, he leaves one of the three boatmen at the office to inform any one 
who may call upon business as to where they can find the inspector and 
deputy collector; and the territory that the inspector has to visit is so 
large that it keeps him in his boat a great deal of the time. I think 
the force at Coosaw is necessary and cannot be reduced without detri¬ 
ment to the public sendee. Nor can I suggest any way to simplify or 
improve the methods of doing the business here. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

G. HOLMES, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, T>. C. 


Collector. 


No. 16. 


Custom-House, Belfast, Me., 

Collector's Office , April 11, 1885. 


Sir : In response to your letter of March 31, 1885, I have to report 
that, in my opinion, no reduction of the force employed under my 
direction can be made without detriment to the public service, and that 
I am unable to make any suggestions or recommendations whereby the 
method of doing business can be simplified or the efficiency of the ser¬ 
vice may be improved or the expenses curtailed. 

Verv respectfully, 

I. M. BOARDMAN, 

Collector. 


Hon. vDaniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , 1). C. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 141 


No. 17. 


Custom-House, Boston, Mass., 

Collectors Office, April 13, 1885. 

Sir : Beferring to Department letter of March 31, 1885, I have the 
honor to report that in July, 1883, this office was reorganized to a large 
extent, in accordance with the report of a Department commission, at 
which time the force was reduced from 383 to 352 men and the annual 
compensation from $542,751 to $455,157, a decrease of 31 men and 
$87,594. There has since been no material increase of the force, and it 
can not, in my judgment, be further reduced without injury to the pub¬ 
lic service. 


Under the existing general organization of the customs service, I 
know of no method by which the details of business at this port can be 
simplified or the efficiency of the service improved. 

Very respectfully, 

B. WOBTHINGTON, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 18. 

Custom-House, Boston, Mass., 

Surveyors Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to the letter of the Department, under date of March 
31 ultimo, requesting my opinion whether the force under my direc¬ 
tion can be reduced without detriment, and such recommendations as 
may occur to me, I have the honor to reply, 

The force under my direction by law is of two classes, first, the in¬ 
spectors, weighers, measurers, and gaugers, who are nominated for ap¬ 
pointment by the collector, and whom it is my duty, under his direction, 
to superintend and direct, in accordance with the provisions of section 
2627, Bevised Statutes; second, a deputy surveyor and eight clerks 
and messengers, who are nominated by me for appointment, under Sec¬ 
tion 2634, Bevised Statutes. 

Class 1 .— In reference to the first class, the outdoor officers of this 
customs district, I have to say that it has been reduced in numbers at 
various times within the last few years, so that it cannot be reduced 
further, nor as a whole, without real detriment to the public service; 
and in one branch at least it has already been reduced, in my judgment, 
actually to the detriment of the public service, as I will specify in an¬ 
other portion of my letter. 

The inspectors are divided into two bodies, according to the time of 
their employment—one, inspectors employed by day, the other, inspec¬ 
tors employed “for service at night,” under act of 1878, chaptei 359, 
and act of 1880, chapter 189, called, for convenience, day-inspectors and 
night-inspectors. 

There are eighty-nine day inspectors at this port, two of these, not 
in fact, though in law, under my direction. One inspector, Emery, is 
under the immediate direction of the collector; the other, Graves, is 
employed in the office of Special Agent Bingham. 



142 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


There is one occasional inspector of marble, and one occasional female 
inspector. 

The remaining eighty-five day-inspectors actually under me, as a 
whole, are able, experienced, efficient, and faithful. Among them 
all are a few who are not in robust health, suffering more or less physi¬ 
cally, some from old wounds received in the military service of the 
country, some from injuries received while in the performance of their 
official duties here. From these we cannot expect as hard, continuous 
work as a large proportion of the inspectors perform. They deserve 
well of the Government, are rendering valuable service, and are worth 
more than inexperienced strong men. 

The Department allows leaves of absence to be granted to each of 
from fourteen to thirty days per annum. Making allowance for these 
leaves and for sickness, we cannot well do the public business with effi¬ 
ciency, and with the promptness required by the public, with much, if 
any, less force of inspectors. 

^Relatively, the night force is now more in need of men than the day 
force. I am so convinced that the number of inspectors for service at 
night needs to be increased, that, if there be no other way of doing it, 
it would be better to attempt to do the public business with eighty 
inspectors, if the number so saved could be added to that of the night- 
inspectors. 

At present there are three inspectors who have been at home sick 
from one-half to the whole of the month. It is probable they will 
be unable to do duty again. Other vacancies will occur. If the De¬ 
partment approves of the views I am about to express as to the night 
force, and is unwilling to add to the numbers at this port, I recommend 
that vacancies in inspectorships as they may occur, to the number of 
seven, if Inspectors Emery and Graves return to duty under me, other¬ 
wise to the number of five, be filled by the appointment of night-in¬ 
spectors. The reduction in expense will be $1 per diem per man, and 
the Government will be better protected. 

We have about seven miles of water front in this port where vessels 
and boats may land merchandise day and night. Nine years ago we 
had fifty-three night-inspectors guarding this water front at night, 
while eighty-five day-inspectors now guard by day. Forty, and even 
fifty night inspectors, necessarily divided into two watches, are not 
too large a force to watch this water front vigilantly and protect the 
Government from frauds by smuggling and otherwise, in my opinion 
and in that of intelligent officers who have long been emploved on the 
duty. 

At the port of Baltimore there are thirty-four night-inspectors; at 
Philadelphia, thirty-eight; at New York, one hundred and nineteen; 
while at Boston, the second port in the amount of its importations, 
there are under the surveyor for the same kind of duty to-day but 
fourteen, though business has been on the increase, and not on the 
decrease. 

In 1882 a commission, consisting of the then chief clerk of the Treas¬ 
ury Department, two special agents, and the auditor of the collector of 
this port, made what they called an examination of this custom-house, 
and recommended, among other things, that the force of night-inspect¬ 
ors be reduced from forty-three to twenty-five, and a part, if not the 
whole, twenty-five be put on special detective service. I have held 
this office and had charge of this night, as well as the other outdoor 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 143 


force, since the close of the war, but did not have the honor to be con¬ 
sulted by the commission on this subject. The recommendation of the 
commission was carried into effect July 1, 1883, no change being made 
at other ports. Soon after, I received an order from the collector direct¬ 
ing that eleven of the twenty-five be detached from under my direction 
and be placed under Inspector Emery, and be no longer subject to my 
orders. 

In my opinion, such an order was in violation of positive provisions 
of law, and I respectfully protested to the collector, who informed me 
that it was the Departments order. 

It will be observed that section 2627, Revised Statutes, provides that 
the Surveyor shall ‘ i direct all inspectors 7 7 “ within his port. 7 7 Inspectors 
may be appointed on the nomination of a collector, under section 2621, 
and directly by the Secretary, as it has been decided, under section 
2605, Revised Statutes. In both cases they are paid simply as inspect¬ 
ors, under sections 2733 and 2737, Revised Statutes, and get their 
authority as such under section 3059, Revised Statutes. 

Calling Inspector Emery “special, 77 or inspectors “for night service 77 
“night-inspectors, 77 does not change their lawful character. As in¬ 
spectors the law places them under the immediate direction of the sur¬ 
veyor ; he is subject to the direction of the collector as well as that of 
the Secretary; but it was decided in the Supreme Court United States, 
in the case of Morrill in error vs. Jones, (No. 5551, Synopsis of Decisions, 
1883,) that even the Secretary could not exercise his discretion in viola¬ 
tion of the positive provisions of law. Moreover, the mode of the sur¬ 
veyor’s appointment and many provisions of law show that the sur¬ 
veyor’s office, in connection with the naval office, was intended to be 
a check on that of the collector’s, and to strip the surveyor of any force 
given him by the law, so far defeats this object, contemplated by Con¬ 
gress since 1789. 

Aside from the law on the subject, this change, in my opinion, has 
been on its merits a mistake for the Government. Up to the change, 
we had tried to keep the whole water front vigilantly watched by night 
as well as by day, night officers regularly relieving the day officers, 
carrying out the instructions of the Department in articles 406-410, 
regulations for inspectors, &c. It was claimed, as a reason for the 
change, that there were not seizures enough made by the night force. 
The results under the then captain of night-inspectors were not a safe 
basis for judgment. Within a few months afterwards, in my personal 
investigation, I ascertained certain facts as to his manner of doing the 
business of liis office, of rather of neglecting it, and as to other im¬ 
proper conduct, so that I deemed it my duty to prefer written charges 
against him to the collector, whereupon, and without a trial, which he 
was offered, he resigned. I found, among other things, that a majority 
of the detections made by the night-inspectors he had not reported. 

Few seizures, comparatively, have been made by the reduced force 
since. By the same reasoning, this fact would prove that the present 
force is less effective than the former one. The so-called detective force 
on duty by day have made less seizures than the night-inspectors per¬ 
forming their former usual duty. But the number of seizures made by 
night-inspectors is not a fair criterion as to their value and importance, 
but the amount of protection they afford to the Government’s interest 
and the amount of duties which they assist in collecting. “Night-in¬ 
spectors are appointed for the purpose of preventing smuggling, 77 as 


144 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the Department informs us in article 410, Regulations for inspectors. 
Another reason given was, that smugglers were so vigilant, they would 
smuggle when a night officer turned his back and went to another part 
of his patrol. What do they do now, when the whole water front is 
left at night with scarcely an officer on it? 

This detective force, under an officer practically independent of me, 
has been in the habit of boarding vessels and taking goods, for alleged 
smuggling, from inspectors in charge of the vessels (section 2876, Re¬ 
vised Statutes) under my direction, and being an inferior class of officers, 
in their pay, at least, this has caused occasional conflicts of authority 
and irritation among brother officers, which, in my judgment, is un¬ 
fortunate and unnecessary. I speak of this, not by way of complaint, 
but as the inevitable result of the system. Another officer with a force 
is performing the duties with which the surveyor and the inspectors 
under him are charged. For all these reasons I respectfully recom¬ 
mend that this force of eleven, and all inspectors at this port, be placed 
again under my immediate direction. The entire force of twenty-five, 
with the five to seven additional ones, appointed in vacancies of in¬ 
spectorships, making, in all, from thirty to thirty-two, divided into two 
watches, will enable the surveyor properly to watch the steamers at 
night, which everybody regards as necessary, and sometimes we have 
as many as twelve, and do something towards watching the rest of the 
water front, though I am clearly of the opinion that we should have 
our old number of forty-two. This change will make one less super¬ 
intending officer, and, I think, one acting clerk. 

The force of weighers, gaugers, and measurers under my direction 
consists of three principal weighers, who act also as measurers, with 
three clerks and thirty-two assistant weighers, in three grades, who I 
suppose are in contemplation of law, clerks; one gauger with two as¬ 
sistants. In my opinion, this force cannot be reduced by a man with¬ 
out detriment to the service, providing the usual amount of business 
continues at this port. 

The weighers and gaugers are authorized to employ in weighing and 
gauging a necessary number of laborers, who are paid by the hour for 
their work. The weighers have one or more offices on their districts, 
and at each some laborer must necessarily be employed to take care of 
the office and tools and carry messages. Their pay amounts to more 
than $2 per day each. In my opinion, it would be better to have au¬ 
thority given to employ laborers for these specific duties, not exceed¬ 
ing four in all, and pay them regularly $2 for every working-day. Each 
of the weighers has an authorized clerk, at $1,000 per annum. 

The gauger at this port necessarily has to employ a man to do a sim¬ 
ilar work, who is paid as a laborer, by the hour, about the same amount 
as a weigher’s clerk. I recommend that authority be given to employ 
a clerk for the gauger instead of a laborer by the hour. If the Gov¬ 
ernment will not actually reduce expenses by these changes, it will put 
the payment of these men on a more correct basis, and one less liable 
to abuse. 

Eight night-watchmen to guard the customs buildings are placed 
under my direction. This force cannot be reduced. 

There are also four boatmen for the use of inspector’s boarding ves¬ 
sels at night. 

The steamer “H. Hamlin,” assigned to this port for boarding pur¬ 
poses, is off duty two days every fortnight—necessarily, it is claimed. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 145 


At these times the boatmen, with their boat, have to be on duty. The 
“H. Hamlin’’ is off also every year some weeks for repairs; the boat¬ 
men are also on duty at that time, day and night. In certain seasons 
it is very difficult and often dangerous to board vessels arriving at this 
port, by day even, and much more so at night, with the row-boat. Con¬ 
sidering the amount and character of business now done at the princi¬ 
pal ports, it seems to me that the row-boat is too ill-adapted to the 
purpose and quite out of date. At New York there are two steamers 
assigned to this duty; at Baltimore, a steamer and a steam-launch; at 
this port, the second in size, it seems to me that the Government should 
furnish us with a steam-launch in lieu of a row-boat, which I recom¬ 
mend be done. 

Class 2.-—The force in my immediate office, subject to my own nomi¬ 
nation, consists of one deputy, one assistant, (a clerk,) five clerks, and 
two messengers. Certainly I cannot do the work of superintending 
about one hundred and fifty officers, their reports and accounts, besides 
laborers, with a smaller force. I am quite sure that the salaries of 
clerks in my office have always been smaller, in proportion to the 
amount and character of the work performed by them, than those of 
clerks in other offices in custom-houses. If I were to make any recom¬ 
mendation, according to my honest opinion, it would be to give an 
increase of pay to some. I do not now recommend an increase of ex¬ 
pense in my immediate office. 

As the Department calls for my opinion and invites my suggestions, 
I express the opinion that it would give the surveyor a more wholesome 
control over those immediately serving under him, and thereby add to 
the efficiency of the service, if it were understood by them that the 
surveyor’s opinion as to the merit and efficiency of an officer under him 
would be required before such officer’s advancement or removal, which 
he does not have the opportunity of giving now. And I venture to 
make the suggestion that the officers charged by law with the responsi¬ 
bility of administering the several branches of the custom-house be 
more consulted as to their needs and the best methods of their adminis¬ 
tration, and be allowed to administer their offices according to their 
best judgment, rather than have them administered by, and according 
to the views of, special agents and others who have not the same re¬ 
sponsibility for them under the law. 

If I need to make any apology for the length of this communication, 
it must be on account of the variety of the duties about which I am 
called upon for my recommendations, and because I presume the De¬ 
partment desires not only my recommendations, but my reasons for them 
in full, 

Verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. B. UNDERWOOD, 

Surveyor. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, I). C. 


10 A 


146 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 19. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 

Appraiser’s Office , April 25, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to j our letter of 1st instant, in which you 
request in writing a report giving our views whether “the force em¬ 
ployed under our direction can be reduced without detriment to the 
public service; whether the methods of doing business can be simpli¬ 
fied ; and, in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations 
as may occur to us whereby the efficiency of the service may be im¬ 
proved and the expenses curtailed,” we have the honor to state: That, 
in our judgment, the department under our direction is in a condition 
of good order and efficiency. 

In regard to any curtailment of expense by reduction of the number 
of examiners and" clerks, it may be well to speak of our manner ot 
doing business somewhat at length. 

As the trade differs at this port in amount, and somewhat in kind, 
from New York, so the form of our administration differs from the ap¬ 
praiser’s office at that port. The duties received on imports entered at 
this port are about one-sixth of the duties received at New York. Most 
of the different kinds of merchandise entered at New York are also 
entered at this port, but not in the proportions indicated by the relative 
amounts received at the two ports; for, in the article of wool, for in¬ 
stance, there is about an equal amount entered at both ports; and about 
one-third the amount of sugar and molasses is entered here that is en¬ 
tered at New York. 

In dry-goods there are almost no importations of dress-silks here, of 
which there are many millions of dollars in value consigned at New 
York, and we may say the same of all kinds of merchandise which is 
consigned to this country for sale by the manufacturers, are entered at 
that port. In dry-goods, shoe-findings, such as lastings, &c., there are 
more entered at this port than at any other. The size of the business 
at Boston is well within the cognizance and control of the two apprais¬ 
ers, and, unlike New York, the appraisers here write all reports con¬ 
cerning classification of the tariff rates, which at New York are written 
by heads of divisions and simply approved by the chief appraiser; and 
our assistant appraisers act as examiners of merchandise and assess the 
damage on claims for damaged merchandise during ocean voyage, and 
one has an oversight and chief authority in examination-rooms for dry- 
goods. The two principal appraisers, of equal authority, divide the re¬ 
sponsibility of overlooking the appraisal of merchandise entered at this 
port, one of them (Rice) taking the responsibility of the proper apprais- 
rnent of wool, sugar, iron, hardware, and all merchandise not dry-goods, 
while the other principal appraiser (Darrah) takes the responsibility of 
dry-goods in all their branches and varieties. They also make special 
reports on the classification for duties according to the above allotment. 
We have found the advantage of such division of duty, that we could 
give a particular and more concentrated attention to the values, classi¬ 
fication, and rulings of Department on half of the imports entered, than 
could be given to the valubs and classification of all the multiform 
articles of merchendise on which we have to pass. In pursuance of the 
same policy, we give to our examiners certain lines of goods, with 
which they are familiar by constant practice in examining them, and 
also the Department rulings of their particular classes of goods, which 
makes them much more perfect and valuable in their official work. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 147 


They thence become experts as to the value and as to the classifica¬ 
tion for duty of the iuiports assigned to them, and, according to their 
intelligence and fidelity to duty, become of increased value to the rev¬ 
enue service. Appointments and removals in this department have 
been very rare at this port. When a vacancy has occurred, it has always 
been filled with especial reference as to the capacity of the appointee to 
perform the duties, and not for personal or political reasons. An em¬ 
ploye,of this office died last year, having been in the service forty-six 
years. Another now in service, examiner of iron and like goods, has 
been in this department forty years, still in perfect vigor and usefulness. 
Several have been removed within the last twenty years who proved 
incompetent, but none for any other reason. 

We with confidence, from long experience, report that the present 
force at this department is a staff retained, after several removals for 
inefficiency in the past years, of intelligence, of faithful industry, and 
of expert experience which make them of great value to the revenue 
service. 

Assistant Appraiser Joslin takes the line of woollen manufactures 
for examination, and exercises a general supervision over the dry-goods 
examination-rooms. Examiner Currier takes the line of leather gloves 
and all manufactures of silk goods, in whole or part. Few or no piece 
dress-silk goods are entered at this port, as we have said, but other de¬ 
scriptions of silk manufactures are imported here in large variety, which, 
with lace goods of all kinds, make this line of goods a very important 
one for examination. 

In scarcely an invoice is the duty properly entered in goods composed 
in part of silk, and it becomes the duty of the examiner-expert to care¬ 
fully scan the fabrics, and many times have them analyzed, to determine 
the rate of duty—whether it shall be that of the silk chief, or of the 
other component parts. Having determined the question, this office re¬ 
ports the change from entered rates the proper duties for liquidation. 

Examiner Grafton takes the women and children’s dress-goods, which 
is a large line of goods, requiring careful examination to determine 
their rate of duty—whether they should pay 35 cents and 40 per cent., 
as goods of that description weighing in excess of four ounces per square 
yard, which requires a very exact and careful examination, consuming 
time and patience; or dress-goods of less weight, being composed of 
wool alone, which pay 9 cents per square yard and 40 per cent, ad va¬ 
lorem ; or woollen or worsted containing some cotton or other material 
of less value than the wool, which pays 7 cents and 40 per cent.; or, 
if costing under 20 cents per square yard, they will pay 5 cents and 35 
per cent, ad valorem. 

This line requires expert knowledge, care, time, and patient scrutiny 
to determine the rate of duty, for frequently it is a nice point of weight 
or width measurement which determines which rate they should properly 
pay. 

Examiner Trafton has a line of considerable variety of merchandise, 
which requires great care and knowledge to properly appraise the value 
of and correctly classify for duty. It embraces all hosiery of cotton, 
woollen and worsted, and other materials; underwear of all kinds of 
materials, including knit goods; gloves of all-descriptions, excepting 
those made of leather; cotton yarns, threads, cotton dress-fabrics, all 
fabrics for tailors’ trimmings, all small articles of cotton, like tapes, 
braids, trimmings in large variety; all cotton fine muslins, like mulls, 


148 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


nainsooks, suisse, and figured muslins; curtain-goods in all varieties, 
towels, napkins, handkerchiefs, cotton velvets, and other fabrics of cot¬ 
ton which it would be useless to enumerate only to the end that an idea 
may be had of the extent of the examiner’s line of work. There are 
times when he examines and passes upon fifty cases a day. 

Examiner Wales takes the manufactures of flax, jute, and hemp, 
which comprises a great variety of fabrics. Linen thread is imported 
in larger amount at this port than at New York. Burlaps is also an 
article of large importation, and, as it pays a less duty than that of 
other piece goods of jute, requires watchfulness lest other goods having 
a similitude of appearance should be passed at 30 per cent, when they 
should pay 35 or 40 per cent. Without enumerating the articles com¬ 
posed of flax, jute, and hemp, it will suffice to say that this examiner 
examines all fabrics composed of above materials named in Schedule J, 
and many hundreds not specially named therein. As many of these 
fabrics are frequently of doubtful classification, it is necessary to examine 
them with watchful care. For instance, it is of nearly daily experience 
that fabrics are entered as burlaps at 30 per cent, which are properly 
bagging, dutiable at 40 per cent., and so reported for duty. So-called 
seine-twines, entered at 25 per cent., are found to be common twines, and 
are changed to 40 per cent., and so on for hundreds of articles made of 
above materials, requiring time and care to properly examine and report 
upon them for classification. 

E. I. Henderson, examiner of samples, keeps the records of all the 
samples which come by all the steamers by the hundreds. He also 
keeps the records of warrants for damage allowance for the whole de¬ 
partment. He also copies official letters and does other clerical work. 

Edward Crosby ranks as clerk. His duties are various—to analyze 
dry-goods fabrics when there is a doubt as to the component material 
of chief value, which occurs very often ; to keep the books of record 
of advances for value, and prepare invoices which are advanced. He 
also prepares reports for all goods which pay a square-yard duty, and 
goes over calculations, and certifies to the accuracy of the classification 
of dress-goods, which frequently are very close things, whether they 
are correctly figured to pay a weight-duty as being over four ounces to 
the square yard, or whether or not they are under 20 cents the square 
yard, as they make a change of duty at that point. The reports of 
this class of importations are of great detail, and correct reports are 
of great importance for the more speedy liquidation, as well as for ac¬ 
curate classification. He is the general custodian of reported invoices 
for the dry-goods side of the Department, seeing that all are perfected 
and accurate before they are sent to the collector’s office. 

Thomas Taylor acts as messenger, but also comes to office early in 
the morning to sweep and clean office, make and feed fires on dry-goods 
side, and is x>ost-offiee messenger to the whole department. 

The force to do the work in invoice-room consists of three clerks. In 
order that an idea may be conveyed of the amount of work done in 
this service, we will state that between forty and fifty thousands of in¬ 
voices are sent from collector’s office to this office for oiir official work an¬ 
nually. These invoices are recorded on books ruled with numerous col¬ 
umns, which are filled by the clerks in this room, as follows: Column for 
invoice or entry number, for date of entry, when received by appraiser, 
name of importer, name of vessel, where from, marks and numbers, de¬ 
scription of merchandise, invoice value, entered rate, appraised value, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 149 


when appraised and reported to collector, name of examiner, number of 
packages examined. This record must be made before invoices can be 
used by examiners in most of the columns, and it will be seen that it 
requires careful and rapid work to get through with them, as some in¬ 
voices have many kinds of merchandise and many different rates of 
duty. Two sets of books alike in their ruling are employed, otherwise 
there would be detention and loss of time in examination of goods. 

The time of one clerk is mostly employed in aiding special agents 
and others in looking up invoices of past dates in reference to revenue 
questions. 

In our opinion, the system of this room should not be simplified by 
reducing the fulness of records, which .has been arrived at after long 
experience of its value. 

Assistant Appraiser Jones examines merchandise for claims of damage 
allowance of all descriptions, not dry-goods and sugar. This is an impor¬ 
tant line of service, requiring much time and care, for the claims for dam¬ 
age on fruits of all kinds are very numerous. He is also cigar examiner. 

Examiner Keyes examines sugar and molasses; and he is required 
by the regulations to personally supervise the sampling at the dif- 
erent wharves, to assign the different samplers to the different car¬ 
goes, to examine the samples when received at the appraiser’s office and 
classify them according to the Dutch standard, also to supervise the 
preparation of the samples which are sent to the laboratory for testing; 
to keep a record of every lot of sugar classified by its color and test; to 
report on all invoices of sugar, and to examine on all claims for damage 
allowance on sugar, giving the cause of the damage and the percentage 
of damage allowed. He is also required to ascertain all facts in regard 
to the different cargoes of sugar which are imported, such as values, 
polariscopic-test guarantees under which the cargoes are bought or sold, 
and other information which may be of value in proving the correct¬ 
ness of tests and rate of duties. He has under his direction eight sugar 
samplers, three of whom are temporary appointments. 

The number of samples drawn and examined during the past year 
averaged over six hundred a day. One sampler is needed all the time 
to open and arrange the sample-boxes to be returned for other cargoes. 

Examiner and Chemist Leary has charge of the laboratory for testing 
sugar and molasses, and has with him three assistants. His duties are 
to make tests of all samples sent to the laboratory, either from import¬ 
ers at this port or of other ports where there is no chemist employed. 
He keeps a record of all tests, and reports on the different cargoes to 
the examiner of sugar. He is also obliged by regulations to make five 
comparative tests with the ports of Philadelphia and New York each 
month. The whole number of tests of sugar and molasses made by him 
during the past year was 7,746. It should be understood that of the 
600 samples per day, only one or more samples may be sent to be tested. 

Examiner Pinkham examines all merchandise contained in Schedule 
B of the tariff, which comprises china, porcelain, parian, bisque, and 
crockery wares in large variety, which, with the great variety of the 
manufactures of glass, with the numerous classifications, as will be seen 
upon looking at Schedule B, make his examinations an important line 
of work, requiring expert knowledge and care to report the proper 
rates on so great a variety as is contained in the schedule. 

Examiner Fitch has the examination of all machinery, ales, wines, 
and liquors, and all green and dried fruits. The machinery is mostly 


150 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


examined at the mills where it is to be used, and requires the examiner 
to go into every State in New England, and nearly every manufactur¬ 
ing district, and many times as far as Western New York, in fact, fol¬ 
lows the machinery to its destination; all of which he does without ex¬ 
tra compensation, the importers paying his actual travelling expenses. 
More machinery comes into this port than into any other. The liquor 
samples are drawn, carefully weighed, and kept in his custody until 
an accumulation is reached sufficient to be sold at auction, and the pro¬ 
ceeds, which is quite an amount annually, covered.into the United 
States Treasury through the collector. The examiner keeps a com¬ 
plete record of all his invoices. 

Examiner Dimond, who is unusualy well qualified to perform the 
duties thereof, having had long experience in one of our largest im¬ 
porting wool-houses for many years, examines all imported wool and 
hair, except horse hair. A book is kept representing the invoices, in 
which each importation is recorded, as to class, number of bales, pounds, 
value; whether, in the case of wool, it is washed, scoured, or in the 
gross. One baje in ten of each mark inevery invoice is examined; 
samples are drawn of each mark and appraised, and are kept in sepa¬ 
rate papers and marked for identification. Such samples are kept for 
two years and then delivered to such importers as choose to claim them ; 
the rest are passed over to the storekeeper and sold for the benefit of the 
Treasury Department. 

During the year 1884, there were passed through this port, samples 
of which were duly drawn and examined by the examiner, 74,310 bales 
of wool, hair, &c. Wool of all classes pays duty, first, according to 
the class to which it belongs; second, as to the market value of the 
same at the date of exportation at the place whence exported to the 
United States, the correct determination of all which, as will be readily 
seen, requires a large and varied amount of experience and information. 

Examiner Nason examines nearly all the merchandise described in 
Schedule C, metals, namely, under paragraphs 144, 156-160, 167-169, 
171-177 to 180, and part of 182, and paragraphs 183 to 195, all iron, 
steel, and other metals, all requiring expert examination and classifi¬ 
cation. On the steel and iron in bars and sheets the value rules the 
rate of duty, and no man without experience could do the work cor¬ 
rectly. He also examines a great variety of other merchandise, such 
as hemp, flax, and tow, rice and rice-flour, rubber, cotton, coffee, 
dye woods, sheathing felts, jute and jute-butts, cordage and wire-rope, 
and numerous other articles of merchandise too numerous to particu¬ 
larize. 

Examiners Bird, Wellington, and Rhoades examine an immense num¬ 
ber of articles of merchandise, altogether too numerous to mention, in¬ 
cluding large parts of Schedules A, B, C, D, E, G, M, and N, and large 
numbers of articles on free list. These articles require great care and 
knowledge to properly examine and classify. Many, indeed most, cases 
examined by these experts contain hundreds of different articles of 
merchandise of almost as many different classifications, requiring care 
and expert knowledge to properly report the rates on such goods for 
liquidation. Examiner Bird examines books, pamphlets, and printed 
matter; condiments, preserves of all kinds; all toilet preparations, and 
other like things. Examiner Wellington takes paintings, artist ma¬ 
terials, and all works ot art; clocks and watches; hardware and cutlery. 
Examiner Rhoades examines buttons, buckles, and like trimmings; 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 151 


boots and shoes; guns, and all kinds of fire-arms; leather, and manu¬ 
factures of leather; paper, and manufactures of the same; plants, trees, 
and like imports. 

Examiners Dunham and Wiley board all incoming steamers and ves¬ 
sels ; appraise the dutiable value of the personal effects and merchandise 
brought in trunks by passengers, and make all examinations of goods, 
on wharves and elsewhere, which, from their bulk or peculiar character, 
do not require examination at appraiser’s stores. Their duty requires 
a range of five or six miles from, one extreme limit of city wharves to 
the other. Their duties are important, and well performed. 

Drug Examiner Young is appointed by the President and confirmed 
by the Senate, but acts in a degree under and reports to the appraisers. 
The present incumbent is a good officer, intelligent and faithful in the 
performance of his official duties. 

Edwin D. White, clerk, has charge of the correspondence of the divis¬ 
ion in charge of Mr. Appraiser Rice, filing, indexing, &c., of commu¬ 
nications from the Department or other sources, and aids in the prepa¬ 
ration of reports called for by the Department. He is an expert 
stenographer, and is employed in the record of reappraisement, which 
are of frequent occurrence. Examiner Smith examines all importations 
from the British Provinces, and a portion from west coast of Africa. 
He examines the merchandise of more than 8,000 invoices per annum. 

Alexander Richardson is an opener of all cases of machinery, liquors; 
all miscellaneous goods, not dry-goods or hardware, &c., which are sent 
to appraiser’s stores for examination, makes fires and sweeps out, &c., 
one-half of the offices. There are employed in the examination-rooms 
eleven openers and packers, and four laborers to handle and place 
cases. There are not too many to keep examiners employed without 
detention. Merchants complain, in the busy seasons of the year, that 
more examiners are not employed, so that a quicker delivery could be 
made of their goods, though examiners give all their time at such seasons 
to examinations and delivery of goods, reporting afterwards, when the 
press of business is less, on invoices for liquidation. Simplifying might 
be done, but with danger of shirking careful examinations, and losses to 
the revenue. 

One unacquainted with the importance of the business at this office 
woul assume that all is right according to entry, and simply check the 
invoice if quantity were found correct, “all right,” which would be the 
easiest and most expeditious way; but as a thorough examination of 
goods by our present system results in changing some portions of seven 
invoices in ten in their classification for duty rates, and in consequence 
of such changes and advances of dutiable value certainly hundreds of 
thousands of dollars annually are added to the revenue of this port, we 
cannot advise a reduction of force which would make our methods more 
simple indeed, but also make them imperfect, and, in our judgment, at 
a large loss to the revenue. 

By the foregoing it will be seen that, in our belief, an employment of 
a sufficient force in this office to examine imported merchandise search- 
ingly for quantity, value, and classification of duty, is not only a proper 
thing, in order to give the goods with reasonable expedition to the im¬ 
porter, but it is the means of a very large saving to the revenue, over the 
salary expense, in carefully ascertaining the true dutiable values and 
proper rates of duty, instead of employing a smaller force, which could 
only have time to check off the cases of merchandise with little more care 
han the inspectors use, who only note marks and numbers of cases. 


152 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

We almost shrink from sending so long a report in reply to your 
circular, but hardly know how to explain our reasons clearly at less 
length. Indeed, though we have stated with such apparent lulness 
our methods of business, and the different kinds of work of the men 
under our control, the space we have used could easily de doubled, or 
trebled, without fully describing our system, which we believe to be a 
good one, as it protects the revenue and gives the imported goods to 
importers with reasonable expedition. 

Very truly, your obedient servants, 

THOS. G. RICE, 

R. K. DARRAH, 

Appraisers. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Ho. 20. 


Port of Boston, Mass., 

Naval Office , April 13, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, on the 6th instant, 
of your circular letter of the 31st ultimo, requesting me to report to the 
Department to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under 
my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service. 

Since receiving the same, I have made careful examination of the con¬ 
dition of the office, the work at the several desks, &c., with a view to 
answering your inquiries. 

I beg to state that when I took charge of this office I found sixteen 
clerks employed. That number, on the average, had been employed for 
the four years (1874- 7 75-’76-’77) previous to my incumbency, and the 
average amount of revenue collected annually during that period had 
been about $13,500,000. 

Believing at that time that one clerk could be dispensed with, 1 im¬ 
mediately made the reduction, and the office was carried on the first 
year with fifteen clerks. We collected that year $12,735,000. 

The business then rapidly increased year by year till 1883. I present 
herewith an abstract covering each year of my official connection with 
the office, showing the revenue collected and the number of clerks em¬ 
ployed in the naval office for each year: 


Year. 

Revenue 

collected. 

Number of 
employes. 


$12,735,000 
16,483,000 
21,236,000 
22,067,000 
24,763,000 
22,728,000 
20,360,000 

15 clerks. 


16 clerks. 


17 clerks. 


18 clerks. 


19 clerks. 


19 clerks. 


19 clerks. 



This statement shows an average annual collection during the seven 
years last past of about $20,000,000, and an average force in this office 
of about eighteen clerks. I desire also to state that— 















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


153 


1. At this time the range and extent of the work of this office is con¬ 
siderably greater than it was before my incumbency. Our daily work 
embraced, by gradual additions, several branches of revision and verifi¬ 
cation not included in its scope previously. 

2. The work of this office now, when compared with years previous 
to 1878, is large, disproportionately to the mere increase of the collec¬ 
tions. Its increase would be better represented by the total number of 
entries passing annually through the office, which have increased from 
about 26,000, in 1877, to about 47,000, in 1884; or, more correctly still, by 
the entries annually liquidated, which have increased from about 
12,000, in 1877, to about 29,000, in 1884. 

This disproportionate change is due to several causes, the chief of 
which is the steady and progressive displacement of large importations 
by sailing-vessels by more numerous small importations by steamers. 

It will be seen by the above statistics, and is well known to the De¬ 
partment, that the collections have fallen off from 1882 to the present 
time, and it seems probable now that the collections for 1885 will be 
somewhat less than those of 1884, while the number of clerks in the 
office remains the same. 

In this connection, I would state that in April, 1883, this office was 
subjected to a careful and minute examination at the hands of a very 
intelligent commission, appointed by the Treasury Department to 
recommend a reorganization of its force, with a view to efficiency and 
economy. Under the recommendation of the commission, a reorgani¬ 
zation was effected July 1, 1883, without any reduction of the clerical 
force, but with a small reduction of the total salaries. The office was 
thus put upon its present basis of nineteen clerks, with the work of 
each desk fixed and defined. It has gone on very systematically since, 
and while the aggregate collections have somewhat diminished since 
then, I think the work done in the office has fallen off but little, if any. 
It is to be remembered that the work of a custom-house is somewhat 
fluctuating. There are, especially in seasons of business depression, 
lively days and dull days. The force should obviously be kept at a 
point where it is able to transact the business of the active day without 
delay to its business customers. The force now employed in the naval 
office is able to do that, and is not able to do more. 

Permit me to mention another consideration. Each clerk is entitled 
to a vacation of fourteen working-days during the year. These vaca¬ 
tions for nineteen clerks are taken regularly during three or four sum¬ 
mer months, which are now approaching, and, with the inevitable sick¬ 
ness, necessitate the constant absence of from three to five clerks during 
that period. With a force so reduced, we always have considerable 
difficulty in getting on with the business, and are obliged to get con¬ 
siderably in arrears every season with such work as can be deferred. 

In view of what has been presented, it is my judgment that it would 
not- be advisable to reduce the force in this office at this time, and that 
it cannot be done without detriment to the public service. If, however, 
at the close of the vacation season the opening of the autumn business 
shall show that the depression of the last few months is a permanent 
and continuing one, and that the present confident expectations of a 
revival are not to be realized, then I think it may appear that one or 
two clerks may be safely dispensed with. 

In answer to the concluding inquiries of your letter, I beg to say that 
no way occurs to me in which the methods of doing business in this 


154 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


office can be simplified or the service improved. I believe the office is 
in excellent condition and performing its duties efficiently, but should 
be happy to have its operations examined into in any manner deemed 
proper by the Department. 

It will give me pleasure at all times to co-operate cordially with the 
Secretary in any measures he may direct for promoting the efficiency of 
the public service and curtailing its expenses. 

I am, sir, with great respect, vour obedient servant, 

DANIEL HALL, 

Naval Officer. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 21. 


Custom-House, Brashear, La., 

Collector's Office , April 6 , 1885. 


Sir : In reply to circular letter of March 31,1 will state that a reduc¬ 
tion of one inspector of customs at this port can be made without 
detriment to the public service. Mr. W. B. Gray is the officer. Occa¬ 
sionally I may be compelled to temporarily enrploy such officer tor a 
few days at a time. 

If Mr. Gray, inspector, is to be discontinued, I would recommend 
that it take effect on 15th instant. 

Respectfully, &c., 

JAS. B. JOLLY, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


No. 22. 


Custom-House, Bridgeport, Conn., 

Collector's Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your favor of the 31st ultimo, I have to report that 
I do not see how the force employed in the district of Fairfield can 
possibly be reduced. There are but two officers now in the district, one 
the collector, and the other the deputy collector, who also acts as in¬ 
spector, weigher, measurer, and gauger; and also, I do not see how the 
business can be simplified so as to curtail the expenses of this office. 

Previous to October, 1883, there was an officer at Norwalk and one at 
Stamford, but they were dispensed with at that time by direction of 
the Department, My opinion is that there should be an officer at each 
of these ports, for the reasons stated in a communication from this office 
October 19, 1883. 


There ought to be an additional officer at this port to act as a perma¬ 
nent inspector and boarding officer. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. S. HANOVER, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 


Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 155 


No. 23. 

♦ 

Custom-House, Bristol, R. I., 

Collector’s Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to your communication under date of March 31, 1885, 
would say that I do not see as there can be any reduction in the num¬ 
ber of employes in this district. The present force is as follows : One 
officer at this port who fills the office of deputy collector, inspector, 
weigher, gauger, and measurer, and in my absence as special deputy 
and disbursing agent. One at the port of Warren as deputy collector 
and inspector. One boatman for the district, and one janitor for the 
building under my custody. 

Yery respectfully, 

JOHN COLLINS, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 24. 

Custom-House, Brownsville, Tex., 

Collector’s Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir: In conformity with your letter of March 31 ultimo, I would 
suggest the following reductions in the force of this customs district, 
to wit: 

At the sub-port of Roma the services of the local inspector can be 
dispensed with, and his duties performed by the deputy collector and 
inspector, with the assistance of the mounted force stationed at the sub¬ 
port aforesaid. 

At the sub-port of Rio Grande City the services of the local inspector 
can be dispensed with, and his duties performed by the deputy collector 
and inspector, with the assistance of the mounted force stationed at the 
said sub-port. 

The sub-port of Salado can be abolished and the services of the deputy 
collector and mounted inspector dispensed with. The business done at 
said sub-port does not, in my opinion, justify its continuance; it is 
within easy reach of and can be patrolled by the mounted inspectors of 
the sub-ports of Edinburg and Rio Grande City. 

At this port (Brownsville) there are four local inspectors—three sta¬ 
tioned at the ferry plying between this port and Matamoras, and one 
inspector acting as boarding officer. For several years it has been the 
custom for the ferry to be run all night for the accommodation of pas¬ 
sengers between the cities of Brownsville and Matamoras, no goods, 
however, being permitted to cross after sundown. I would suggest that 
the services of two local inspectors at the ferry be dispensed with, as I 
see no reason why one local inspector, with the assistance of the board¬ 
ing officer, should not be able to perform the duties from sunrise until 
dark, and, as the mounted force patrol alternately at night, the ferry 
could be included in their beat. 

At the port of Brazos de Santiago the services of the local inspector 
can be dispensed with. The services of this officer can be performed by 
the deputy collector, with the assistance of the mounted inspector, in 



156 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE* TREASURY. 


addition to their other duties, without detriment to the service. The 
arrival of foreign vessels may occasionally require, the employment of 
a temporary inspector, but the business transacted at said port does not 
warrant the retention of a permanent local inspector. 

* * ***** 
I am, sir, very respectfully, 

JAMES O. LUBY, 

Collector. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


No. 25. 


Custom-House, Burlington, Vt., 

Collector's Office, April 14, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department letter of date 1st instant, requesting a 
report as to what extent the force employed in this customs district can 
be reduced without detriment to the public service; whether the methods 
of doing the business can be simplified, &c., whereby the efficiency of 
the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed, I have to report 
that the frontier of this district is about 100 miles in extent. There are 
fifty-two public highways leading directly to and from the Dominion of 
Canada, and five railways, besides the waters of Lake Mempliremagog 
and Lake Champlain. To guard those avenues, there are fourteen out¬ 
posts, which make returns to this office. The present number of em¬ 
ployes within this district is fifty-three, distributed as follows, viz: At 
seven of said outposts but one officer at each is stationed, at two of said 
outposts two officers at each, and the remaining five outposts, called 
“railroad ports,” two, four, seven, eight, and twelve officers are sta¬ 
tioned, respectively. There is also pertaining to this district five 
inspectors, stationed in the Dominion of Canada, on account Grand 
Trunk Railway, and also four tally-clerks, (boys,) one inspector, and 
one watchman, which may serve during the season of navigation. At 
said railroad ports the hours of service are irregular, as very many of 
the freight as well as passenger trains arrive at night, and, in fact, the 
the service is continuous day aud night. I have very recently returned 
from visiting the outposts, with a view of accomplishing what appa¬ 
rently is desired by said Department letter, viz., to reduce the force if 
possible; but I am perfectly convinced that any reduction at said cus¬ 
toms stations would be detrimental to the service, and, with regard to 
this office, the number of employes is scarcely sufficient to attend to the 
importations at this port and accomplish the rendering of the numerous 
accounts, reports, and returns required by the Department; therefore, 
unless the business can be greatly simplified in some manner, which I 
am not at present prepared to suggest, I cannot recommend any reduc¬ 
tion of the employes in this district. 

Very respectfully; your obedient servant, 


WM. WELLS, 

Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington D. C. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 157 


No. 26. 

Custom-House, Burlington, Iowa, 

Collector's Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of April 1 , re¬ 
questing me to report to what extent the force employed under my 
direction can be reduced, and to make such suggestions as may occur 
to me whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and ex¬ 
penses curtailed. 

In reply, I have to state that no person is employed at this port at the 
expense of the Department subordinate to myself; that my salary is 
$350 per annum, with fees and commissions added, and that these latter 
have never much exceeded $ 100 , or thereabouts, per annum, and will 
hereafter probably be less 5 and that the only current other expense is 
for rent of office, now at $9 per month, or $108 per annum. 1 do not 
see any mode of reducing these expenses, which are already at a mini¬ 
mum. 

Any practical suggestions for the reduction of expenses or greater 
efficiency must necessarily be made by those who are at the head of 
more important offices where employes are numerous, duties varied, 
and the expenses are proportionate, and may possibly be excessive. As 
I am not familiar with the details of such offices, it would be folly for 
me to make any recommendation in regard to them. 

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

GEO. FRAZEE, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 27, 

Custom-House, Cairo, III., 
Surveyor's Office , April 8 , 1885. 

Sir : Department circular letter of April 1 duly came to hand. In 
compliance with the request contained in said letter, I have to say the 
business of this office has been greatly reduced since the autumn of 
1883 by the following causes: 

First. In the autumn of 1875 the custom-house at Paducah, Ky., was 
suspended, and all business of that port was transacted here for the 
period of eight years. The distance is only fifty miles. In the autumn 
of 1883 the office at Paducah was re-established. This took away prob¬ 
ably about one-third of our business. 

Second. By the act of June 26, 1884, (section 15,) the law for the col¬ 
lection of hospital-dues was repealed and the fees for inspection of steam- 
vessels were reduced. Thus the business of this office was further re¬ 
duced and the collections very greatly reduced. But, on the other hand, 
the customs officer here has no assistance from other officers. We have 
no local board of inspectors and no United States district attorney. 

There are, I believe, more arrivals and departures of vessels at and 
from this port than from any other port of the United States, except 



158 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


New York. At least, tlie arrivals and departures number between 
three thousand and four thousand per annum. As a result, the customs 
officer here is constantly consulted. He is called upon to give the law. 
There are occasional violations of law, which he must take in hand. 
Very much time is consumed in official business which makes no show 
of record. 

The customs officer is the custodian of the custom-house. This re¬ 
quires much work, and constant care and drudgery. 

The office must be kept open, and a competent man kept there, during 
business hours. 

Our custom-house was built for the future, and is six blocks away from 
the centre of business in town. This renders it more difficult for the 
chief officer of the customs to carry on other business, as he must do, 
unless he is a gentleman of leisure , which the present incumbent is not. 

With this statement, I proceed to answer the letter. I have but one 
subordinate , and cannot dispense with one without detriment to the service. 
I hardly think that the methods of doing business can be simplified. 

I believe that the custom-house at Paducah should be abolished, and 
the business of that port transacted here. I never could perceive any good 
reason for the re-establishment of that office. I feel confident that the 
river-men who do business at the custom-house did not generally de¬ 
mand it. The business of that port certainly was done here for eight 
years without f riction. If permitted to name my own deputy, I believe 
I could place a person in the office (a young lady) who could fill the 
position, for three hundred dollars per annum. 

I have made this letter long, that I might state the situation as fully as 
possible. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

GEO. FISHER, 

Surveyor , &c. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). G. 


No. 28. 

Custom House, Cape Vincent, N. Y., 

Collector's Office , April 7, 1885. 

v Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the 1st instant, asking to what extent the force in this district can be 
reduced and the business simplified. 

In reply, would respectfully state that I do not see how the force in 
this district can be reduced any further without injury to the public ser¬ 
vice and great inconvenience to the business interests. Reductions have 
been made from time to time until we have barely sufficient to perform 
the work required by the employment of extra men during the season of 
summer travel on the river, and one at this point during the winter 
months. At this point, the only place where more than one officer is 
employed during the whole year, no reduction can be made, as there 
are times when more help is really needed to perform the work re¬ 
quired. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 159 


I have no recommendations to make relative to simplifying the 
methods of doing business, as none occur to me at present. 

Very respectfully, 

G. W. WARREN, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 1). C. 


No. 29. 

Custom-House, Castine, Me., 

Collectors Office , April 6 , 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of your printed letter, 
dated April 1 instant, requesting me to report in writing to what ex¬ 
tent, in my opinion, the force employed under my direction can be 
reduced without detriment to the public service; also asking for sugges¬ 
tions in relation to simplifying the methods of doing business, &c. In 
reply, I respectfully beg leave to say that I should labor under embar¬ 
rassment in answering the questions embodied in your letter for the 
following reason or reasons, to wit: During my term of office, embrac¬ 
ing a period of fifteen years, I have been treated with uniform courtesy 
and kindness by my political opponents in this district, and many of 
them are my personal friends. Those friends, in the near future, will 
occupy the places now filled by me and my subordinates. My (proba¬ 
ble) successor has based his arrangements, in relation to his subordinates 
and other matters relating to the duties of the office, on its present status. 
Should I recommend a change, whether adopted or not, that would in 
any respect interfere with such arrangements, he would have reason to 
think that I had given an unkind and uncalled-for thrust just as I was 
leaving the office. It is my earnest desire to leave the office with the 
same good feeling towards the incoming force that they have ever man¬ 
ifested towards me, and I respectfully ask that the reasons given may 
excuse me for not answering the questions. 

I would say that the force cannot be reduced except by abolishing 
one of the sub-offices, or dispensing with the services of one deputy in 
this office. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. H. SARGENT, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 



160 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 30. 

Custom-House, Cedar Keys, Fla,, 

Collector’s Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to report, as per instructions in your circular 
of April 1, relative to the reduction of force in this district, that I have 
but one special deputy collector, two inspectors, and one revenue boat¬ 
man. One inspector is stationed at the port of St. Marks, seventy miles 
west of Cedar Keys; the other is stationed at Cedar Keys. In the month 
of March there were seventy-nine arrivals and departures of steamers, 
schooners, and sloops, that are engaged in the coasting trade on the Gulf 
coast of Florida, that do not pay any entrance fee, but require constant 
watching, and requires the inspector to be continually on the docks and 
beach where the vessels land for the purpose of unloading and loading. 
The boatman, who acts as boatman, messenger, and janitor, cannot be dis¬ 
pensed with. The deputy is necessary to perform the work in the office 
as required by law. 

The force in this district has been reduced from time to time as cir¬ 
cumstances would admit. The traffic on the gulf coast is increasing very 
rapidly, caused by the increase of immigration. 

I cannot recommend any reduction. If at any time we can reduce the 
force, I will recommend it at once. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. HIRST, 

Collector. 

Hon. Secretary' of the Treasury, 

Washington, D. C. 


No. 31. 

Custom house, Charleston, S. C., 

Collector’s Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : The receipt of Department circular letter dated 1st instant is 
acknowledged. 

In reply thereto, I have the honor to state that the force employed 
under my direction in the United States customs department, custom¬ 
house building, and old club-house building, is as follows: 

Customs department employs— 

Salary per annum. 


One special deputy collector, cashier, and clerk. $2, 000 00 

One import entry clerk and auditor. 1, 500 00 

One foreign clearance and liquidating clerk. 1 } 500 00 

One coastwise and foreign entry clerk. 1, 500 00 

One chief inspector and boarding officer. 1, 460 00 

One inspector, acting examiner, weigher, and gauger. 1,095 00 

Four inspectors of customs, at $1,095 each. 4, 380 00 

One quarantine inspector of customs, six months. 547 50 

One messenger. 730 00 

Two watchmen, $600 each. 1, 200 00 

Four boatmen, $480 each. 1 ? 920 00 


Total. 17, 832 50 
















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 161 


The act of Congress of 26th June, 1884, abolishing the collection of 
“hospital-dues,’ 7 has so much reduced the labors of the desk as to war¬ 
rant me in recommending that the same be abolished, and that the 
remaining duties of the desk be divided between the special deputy 
collector and desks 1 and 2. By this means the services of one employe 
in the clerical department can be dispensed with, curtailing the ex¬ 
penses fifteen hundred dollars per annum. 

In the department of inspectors the services of one inspector can be 
dispensed with; and, to save a further expense of employing, as here¬ 
tofore, an additional inspector for duty at quarantine station from May 
1 to October 31, I would recommend that one of the regular inspectors 
be assigned to duty at that point, leaving two regular inspectors for 
duty at this office, who, with the inspector performing the duty of ex¬ 
aminer, weigher, and gauger, will be a sufficient force for the require¬ 
ments of the summer months. A reduction of expenses in this depart¬ 
ment of $1,642.50 per annum can thus be made. 

I would recommend that the services of one watchman, at a salary of 
$600 per annum, be dispensed with, one watchman, in my opinion, 
being sufficient for the protection of the building. 

From 1st May until the 1st November, a period of six months during 
the year, the services of two boatmen can be dispensed with, and in 
the busy season the service of only one additional boatman would be 
required. The expenses of boatmen would thus be curtailed $720 per 
annum. 

The total reduction of expenses, as recommended, would be as follows: 


Clerical force, customs department. $1, 500 00 

Inspector’s force, customs department. 1, 642 50 

Watchmen’s force, customs department. 600 00 

Boatmen’s force, customs department. 720 00 

Total. 4, 462 50 

The customs building, employes: 

One janitor, salary per annum. $720 00 

Three assistant janitors, at $30 each per month. 1, 080 00 

Total. 1, 800 00 


The force of “janitors ” employed as above may appear unnecessarily 
great, but since the removal of the United States courts and officers to 
this building the work has increased nearly 100 per cent., and it requires 
much labor to keep the grounds, offices, &c., in proper condition. The 
old ‘ ‘ club-house building ’ ’ employs one watchman, at a salary of $480 per 
annum. 

It seems to me that the methods of doing business cannot be simpli¬ 
fied, and no other suggestions and recommendations than those already 
made occur to me now whereby the efficiency of the service may be im¬ 
proved and the expenses otherwise curtailed. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

T. B. JOHNSTON, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 1). C. 

11 A 













162 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 32. 


Custom-House, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

Surveyor’s Office , September 21, 1885. 


Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lavor ot 
the 3d of August, requesting me to report in writing to what extent, m 
my opinion, the force employed in this district can be reduced without 
detriment to the public service. 

After carefully considering the matter, I beg leave to report that I 
am unable to see how the force at present employed in this office can 
be reduced without injury to the service. 

The business at this point has not been affected as much by the de¬ 
pression in trade as at some other places, and the prospects for a con¬ 
siderable increase in the near future are good, so that it appears to me 
that no reduction in the force employed here in the Government service 
ought to be made. 

• Very respectfully, 

WM. CALDWELL, 

Surveyor of Customs . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 33. 

Custom-House, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

Surveyor’s Office , April 11, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular of 
April 1, 1885, requesting me to report as to the practicability of reduc¬ 
ing the force employed and simplifying the methods of doing business 
at this office. I respectfully submit the folowing: 

I cannot recommend any reduction in the salaries paid. They are 
quite as low as is consistent with the efficiency of the employes. 

The work of building the new custom-house and post office in this 
city is now nearly completed. When the disbursements for this purpose 
have been completed, it is probable that one clerk may be dispensed 
with. I know of no other reduction in the force that I can recommend. 

The business of this office has steadily increased during the past four 
years, and a further increase is probable. 

I am aware that at times the work of the office could be performed 
with fewer men, but these periods cannot be foreseen. The force must 
be kept sufficient at all times to do the work which the public service 
requires. If we had but one point in this city for receiving imported 
merchandise, only two inspectors would be needed instead of three. 
But we have three depots, and often cars waiting at all of them. 

If any one would maintain a private bonded warehouse, the public 
store might be abandoned, though the charges collected for storage, &c., 
are about equal to the expenses, considering that the appraiser’s office 
and examining-room are in the building rented for a public store. 

I consider the public store indispensable. In the assignments of 
rooms and offices in the new public building in this city, no provision 
has thus far been made for the appraiser of merchandise. I made an 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 163 


unsuccessful effort to avoid this condition of tilings. Unless this error 
can be corrected, it will cause an unnecessary expense, as well as incon¬ 
venience in the transaction of business. 

The new public building is abundantly large, not only to alloAv an 
office and examining-room for the appraiser, but the basement, cover¬ 
ing nearly two acres, and thoroughly fire-proof, is ample to afford room 
tor a public store. If the room at command were utilized in this way, 
it would much facilitate the work at this port, and save $3,000 per 
annum. 

There will be a very decided increase in the pay-roll of the custodian 
as soon as the new building shall be occupied. 

Very respectfully, 

D. W. McCLUNG, 

Surveyor and Custodian. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 34. 

Custom-House, Chicago, III., 

Collectors Office, April 15, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the 1st instant, in which I am directed to report to what extent the 
customs force here can be reduced without detriment to the service j 
whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and such sug¬ 
gestions as, in my opinion, would curtail expenses and increase the 
efficiency of the service. 

In reply, I will say, relative of a reduction of force, that, as under the 
act of June 26, 1884, the hospital-dues and the tonnage-tax in most cases 
are no longer collectible, I havb this day recommended the abolition 
of one clerkship in the marine department, class 1, No. 3, $1,200 per 
annum ; and in this connection I will say that since the close of naviga¬ 
tion, January 1, 1885, seven men have been discontinued from the in¬ 
spectors’ force, but that upon the opening of navigation it will be 
necessary to ask for the usual increase for the present season. 

For your information, there is herewith enclosed statement No. 1, and 
in explanation of the same I would say that the customs business at this 
port, so far as it relates to inspectors, is such that, while it requires a 
large amount of work, little revenue results directly from it, from the 
fact that no collections are made for transferring cars and attending to 
exports; and I would also here state that the gradual increase of the 
customs business here indicates that this branch of the service will grow 
continuously. 

In regard to simplifying the methods of doing business at this port, 
I would say, generally, that, there being no surveyors or naval officers 
here, it would seem that the methods of collection are now as simple 
as any known in the customs service, and that they are very economi¬ 
cal will be seen by reference to the enclosed comparative statement, 
No. 2. 

In conclusion, I do not wish to be understood as claiming that in the 
many details of the business here it cannot be improved, and I would 



164 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

be pleased to co-operate with the Department to the end that, it possi¬ 
ble, the same may be simplified, and a farther curtailment ot expense 
made if deemed compatible with the efficient collection of the revenue. 
I am, very respectfully, 

JESSE SPALDING, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 35. 

Custom-House, Cleveland, Ohio, 

Collectors Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of the Department’s let¬ 
ter of the 1st instant, asking a report from this office in writing as to 
what extent the force employed under its direction can be reduced, &c. 

In reply, I would respectfully say that the service would not be im¬ 
paired, in my judgment, by abolishing the office of deputy collector 
and inspector at the outlying ports of Conneaut and Amherst. 

My reasons for this are that the pay at these ports, for the officer is 
too small for him to rely on for support, hence he cannot give his entire 
attention to the business; and, on the other hand, the amount paid by the 
United States for salaries is altogether too great for compensation received 
in the way of receipts from all sources, which from both ports will not 
amount to $25 per year combined. Practically speaking, there is no 
commerce at the above outlying ports of this district. The pay of the 
deputy at Conneaut is 80 cents per day, and Amherst 5 cents per day, 
during the entire year. 

The other outlying ports of this district are Ashtabula, Lorain, and 
Fairport. The pay of the deputies at*the two former is $1.30 per day, 
and at the last-named, 80 cents per day, during the entire year. 

During the period between the closing of navigation in the fall of 
year and the opening of the same in the following spring there is ab¬ 
solutely no business for the deputies to perform, and, in my judgment, 
their reports could all be completed by the last of December each year, 
at which time their pay should cease. On or about the 15th of March, 
they might be again put under pay, and regarding such action I do not 
think they could reasonably complain. In this connection, I might state 
that the practice of the Department of designating such officers as dep¬ 
uty collectors and inspectors is, in my opinion, productive of much un¬ 
necessary expense to the Government. The word “inspector” carries 
with it an obligation to pay such as hold the title $3 per day. When 
the incumbent accepted the position he was aware of the conditions, 
and was satisfied, and yet claim agents at Washington are importuning 
these deputies to place their cases in their hands, and are assured that 
they (agents) can collect the difference between what they receive 
under the terms of their appointment and the amount of an inspector’s 
pay, $3 per day. By such means, a former deputy (S. Butler, Fair- 
port) was paid over $600 as back pay, or arrearages. This is an injus¬ 
tice to the Government, and the regulations should be amended to the 
extent of simply calling such officers deputy collectors. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 165 


Upon one more point I would respectfully offer the Department a 
suggestion: That there be no “ special inspector of customs ’ 7 assigned 
to this port. While not actually upon the pay-roll of this office, still, 
inferentially, the burden must be borne here to the extent of $4 per 
diem and travelling expenses for such officer, and, truthfully speaking, 
without satisfactory results, and the percentage of cost of collecting the 
revenue at this port is raised correspondingly. 

While I have no word of disparagement for the special inspector 
just removed by the Department, I can say that the position itself is 
not essential to the proper protection of the revenue. The present 
corps of three inspectors is sufficient for all of the work, and, I might 
add, have performed all of it. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. W. HOWE, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 36. 

Custom-House, Corpus Christi, Tex., 

Collector’s Office , April 22, 1885. 

Sir : There has been some necessary delay in answering your commu¬ 
nication of 1st instant, relative to the force of this district, owing to the 
fact that it was not expedient to make the required report until I de¬ 
termined by personal observation of the mode and manner of doing the 
business at different points in the district, as well as to ascertain whether 
or not the force is capable and efficient, or could be reduced without 
detriment to the public service. 

At Carrizo I found the force inadequate to perform the duties and the 
business in a proper manner. The two mounted inspectors are required 
to patrol the Rio Grande for a distance of sixty miles, and, as they are 
absent much of the time, the deputy not only has his clerical duties of 
his office to perform, but to attend to the ferry landing, which is three- 
quarters of a mile from his office. This at all times being impractica¬ 
ble, I nominated, on the 17th instant, a suitable person as local inspector, 
vice James McCullouch, resigned, and left that place on the 14th day of 
February last. The business and duties of the officers at Carrizo have 
been done, it appears to me, without system or discipline. The neces¬ 
sary books, such as daily record of moneys received, daily record of 
balances, &c., have not been kept. 

With a view of introducing proper discipline, and to a more efficient 
discharge of the duties required at that point, I have given such officers 
full and explicit instructions. 

In the Laredo office the clerical duties are laborious on account of the 
attention required to be paid to documents and certificates to be made in 
matter connected with the great quantities of bonded goods passing that 
point, the many impost entries passed and liquidated, and the innumer¬ 
able quantities of domestic goods exported to Mexico, which require 
permits to be made out and manifests to be signed and examined. 

I believe with less force in that office the work could not be properly 
conducted, as the deputy and the clerk are often compelled to work 
late at night to complete the business of the day. 



166 


KEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TKEASUKY. 


At Laredo there are two mounted inspectors, whose duty it is to 
patrol the Eio Grande for a distance of about 80 miles. One of these 
inspectors lacks, in my opinion, the requisite inclination or ability 
necessary to be possessed by a mounted inspector in order to accomplish 
satisfactory results in protecting the revenue against illicit traffic; and 
the other—I am not yet positive as to his efficiency. The two local in¬ 
spectors at Laredo are constantly employed—one to attend the examina¬ 
tion, checking, and shipping bonded goods 5 to board all passenger trains, 
examine passengers’ baggage of persons arriving from Mexico. All 
bonded goods in transit to Mexico, except those that pass through Cor¬ 
pus Christi, have to be transferred at Laredo, one railroad being nar¬ 
row gauge and the other broad gauge. 

The duties of the other local inspector are to attend to the ferry at 
the Eio Grande landing, where from 600 to 800 persons cross and recross 
daily. His duties require his attention from one-half hour before sunrise 
until 8 o’clock in the evening. This duty is too arduous for one in¬ 
spector, for his constant attention is necessary, and required from 12 to 
14 hours every day in the week, and the only intermission he has is when, 
by chance, one of the mounted inspectors may be in town, who is sent 
to relieve him for a few hours. Sometimes, when necessary for this 
inspector to be absent, the porter is sent down to take his place. 

Often it occurs that balls, parties, *■‘ fiestes,’ ’ and bull-fights are given 
in Aew Laredo, Mexico, or in Laredo, and then the community demand 
the ferry open until late at night, which requires the inspector to be in 
attendance. 

For these reasons, it is actually necessary, to properly conduct the 
business and guard the revenue, as well as not to overwork the officer, 
that an additional inspector be stationed there. 

Another duty that should be performed by the additional local in¬ 
spector asked for is to visit the stock-pens of the railroads every night 
and patrolling the river in the vicinity of town. The freight-train 
leaves Laredo between 2 and 3 o’clock A. m. Stock can be, and is, smug¬ 
gled into the pens and shipped under cover of the night. I have every 
reason to believe that this has been done on quite a large scale, and on 
my last visit to Laredo instructed the mounted inspector, when in town, to 
visit the pens. The result was a-seizure of twenty-five horses, appraised 
at a value of $250. But the mounted inspectors are rarely in town. The 
local inspector being busy all day, the necessity, I think, explains itself 
for an additional inspector, part of whose duty it shall be to attend to 
this. I therefore request authority to employ an additional local in¬ 
spector, at a compensation of $3.50 per diem, at Laredo. 

The inspectress at Laredo has all she can do to look after the Mexican 
women who attempt to smuggle mescal in bladders, and other dutiable 
articles, hid about their person ; and the inspectress’s presence has had 
a good and wholesome effect upon the ladies at Laredo and in itsvicini y 
who may have contemplated to introduce commodities contrary to law. 

At this office I am compelled to say that a proper attention has not 
been paid to the requirements of the law and regulations by those in 
the office previous to my taking charge. 

It appears to me that the system adopted was one loose to the ex¬ 
treme. The record-books that are required to be kept have, in many 
cases, not been opened, and the inspectors and clerks, not being in¬ 
structed—so they inform me, in their duties—failed to know them, and 
the business of the office, it appears to me, has been done in a hap¬ 
hazard manner. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 167 


The force here is now inadequate to do and perform the business in 
a proper manner. On account of having no suitable person to nominate 
for deputy at Laredo, I have been compelled to send one of the clerks 
from this office there to act until I can find a competent person to fill 
the position. 

The duties of the local inspector at this port are to receive, examine, 
and superintend the shipment of bonded goods landed from the steamers 
en route to Mexico, and goods bonded at this port for export and trans¬ 
portation, as well as to look after the shipping, admeasure vessels, &c. 

The necessity for having an additional inspector here for the protec¬ 
tion of the revenue on the waters of the district is as follows: This port, 
being thirty miles from Aransas Pass, the entrance to the port, it is 
actually important to visit the pass in order to board and examine all ves¬ 
sels that come over the bar. As vessels cross the bar and proceed direct 
to Rockport, Fulton, Lamar, St. Mary’s, and other places in the dis¬ 
trict without coming within thirty miles of this port, it is important 
that trips should be taken to these places and other points for the pur¬ 
pose of examining all vessels found, not only at these places, but all ves¬ 
sels found sailing on the waters of the district. Again, Corpus Christ! 
Pass, which is situated twenty miles southeast from here, should be 
visided, as well as Cedar Bayou, a pass from the Gulf some sixty miles 
from here, and in this district, for at both of these passes vessels can 
and have entered the waters of the district. 

In order to guard against any attempt to smuggle, an inspector should 
visit all of the places in the revenue boat where smuggling operations 
can be carried on; and if you take into consideration the large extent of 
the navigable waters of the district, the many towns accessible to such 
navigation where there are no customs officers stationed, you will, I be¬ 
lieve, consider my request for an additional inspector to do the work 
just and reasonable, as well as necessary for the protection of the 
revenue. 

I am, verv respectfully, 

LOVELL H. JEROME, 

Collector. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington. D, C. 


No. 37. 

Custom-House, Crisfield, Md., 

Collector's Office , April 9, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter, 
dated April 2, 1885, requesting a report as to what extent the force 
employed under my direction can be reduced, and whether the methods 
of doing business can be simplified, &c. 

The business at this port is confined exclusively to the issuance of 
marine documents to vessels, the admeasurement of vessels, recording 
bills of sale and mortgages of vessels, and other work of like nature 
connected with the revenue laws. The report of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment for the year ending June 30, 1884, places this port sixth in the list 
of customs districts in the number of vessels documented, and every 
year shows a steady increase. To perform this work I have one deputy 
'collector, who is compensated by the Government at the rate of $3 pe r 



168 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


day, occupying his entire time; also, one special deputy and clerk, who 
is paid by myself from my emoluments. The business requires the 
entire time of the entire force; indeed, at some periods of the year is 
more than can be done, even working extra time, and the accumulated 
work must lay over to a more leisure time. I therefore cannot see how 
the force employed can be reduced without detriment to the public 
service. 

The methods of doing the business connected with the office are 
mostly prescribed by law, and cannot be deviated from without a change 
in them. The money accounts are few and simple, and the expenses of 
the office are kept as economically as possible, as a reference to my 
returns will show. 

Verv respectfully, 

HANCE LAWSON, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 38. 

Custom-House, Detroit, Mich., 

Collectors Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter 
from the Department, dated the 1st instant, asking a report in writing 
as to what reductions are practicable in the customs force employed in 
this district, &c. 

As bearing on this question, and in order that the Department may 
understand the situation here, I transmit herewith a tabulated list of 
all employes in this customs district, showing their compensation and 
duties. 

An examination of this list will show that my force is divided prac¬ 
tically as follows, viz: 


How employed. 

No. of em¬ 
ploy^, 

Aggregate 

pay. 

In main general office. 

10 

$15,130 00 
7,488 50 
2,672 50 

At custom office at city ferry. 

8 

At custom office at Walkerville ferry. 

3 

In upper end of city. 

1 

900 00 

Tn lower end of city. 

1 

900 00 

Tn United States warehouse. 

3 

3,825 00 
900 00 

At express office. 

1 

At freight-depot, Michigan Central Railroad. 

3 

3,715 00 
3,272 50 
9,807 50 
8,757 50 
2,409 00 

At freight-depot, Grand Trunk Railroad. 

3 

At Michigan Central Railway ferry-boats. 

10 

At Grand Trunk Railway ferry-boats. 

9 

At station outside city in district. 

11 


Total. 

63 

59,777 50 




Attached to the main office are the special deputy, marine, bond, 
clearance, entry, and abstract clerks, chief clerk, cashier, messenger, 
and one deputy collector and inspector, whose duties are to supervise 
the outside force, examine into irregularities, &c. All of these officers 
are necessary; and while it is true that during the winter months I 
might get along with one less man, still, during all the rest of the year, 
the force is fully employed. 























REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 169 


There are employed at the customs office at the city ferry eight offi¬ 
cers. At this point boats are arriving from and departing for Windsor, 
Ontario, (a place of about ten thousand inhabitants,) every five min¬ 
utes, and in the summer months oftener. These boats are in motion 
from sunrise till 11 and 12 o’clock at night, according to the season. 
Large quantities of produce and dutiable goods of greater or less value 
are continually arriving by these boats daily. Hundreds, and during 
the summer months thousands, of persons cross and recross on these 
boats. Wagons, carriages, and vehicles of all kinds are crossing and 
recrossing without cessation. All this business requires the constant 
and vigilant supervision of the force stationed there. Vessels arriving 
or departing within a district embracing about one mile of the river 
front are attended to from this office. One officer of the force stationed 
here is on duty all night during the season of navigation, to receive re¬ 
ports and grant clearances to vessels. Inspection of all imported mer¬ 
chandise arriving by boat within the district above described is made 
by the officers stationed at this ferry. Subtracting from this force one 
female inspector, whose duties are special, another who, being inspector 
of live-stock, and so subject to call to all points in the city, and one 
deputy assigned to night duty, and there remain but five officers who 
can be relied upon to do all the duties pertaining to this station. This 
force cannot be safely diminished, and, in my opinion, should rather 
be increased. 

At the Walkerville ferry, a ferry from the upper end of the city to 
Walkerville, Canada, at which is stationed two deputies and one woman, 
as female inspector, the same duties, with the exception of night-clearance 
business and the inspection of imported goods arriving otherwise than 
by ferry-boats, are required. The boats here run from sunrise till 10, 
and in summer till 11 o’clock at night. 

At the upper end of the city one officer is stationed, and one also in 
the lower end of the city, to receive reports and grant clearances to 
vessels and inspect imported merchandise arriving in their respective 
districts. The district of the first extends from the Grand Trunk Rail¬ 
way depot up the river to the city limits, and of the second from the 
Wabash Railway depot down the river to the city limits, each embrac¬ 
ing about one mile of river front. In these districts are the iron foun¬ 
dries, lumber, wood, sand, and stone docks, and yards. 

At the express office of the American and Canadian Express one 
officer is stationed to look after importations arriving by express, to 
cord and seal bonded goods, and to collect duties on small articles ar¬ 
riving by express. 

At the Michigan Central and at the Grand Trunk Rrailway freight- 
depots are stationed six officers, three at each, whose duties are to attend 
to the inspection of all importations by rail arriving at these points, 
cording and sealing bonded goods, checking out contents of cars arriv¬ 
ing in transit through Canada from eastern United States points, and 
which have been held for any reason, as for defective sealing, irregular 
manifests, &c. These officers are employed regularly from 7 o’clock 
A. M. till dark, and very often through the entire night, so that there 
may be no delay to the railroad traffic. Those stationed at the Michi¬ 
gan Central depot, in addition to their duties at that point, also perform 
the same duties with reference to cars arriving at the Wabash depot, 
half a mile below their station. 

Nineteen men are employed on the railroad transfer boats of the Michi¬ 
gan Central and Grand Trunk Railroads. Each of these roads have in 


170 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


use two boats, those of the former plying between their slip in this city 
and their slip immediately opposite, in Windsor, and those of the latter 
between their slip in Windsor and two points on this side, viz., their 
own depot, directly opposite their Windsor slip, and the Wabash Railroad 
depot, a mile below. 

The boats of the Michigan Central Railroad each carry twenty-four 
cars at a load; those of the Grand Trunk carry, one of them fourteen 
and the other eighteen cars. 

All of these boats run nights , days , and Sundays , with no cessation 
whatever, the year through , and all cars in transit between east and west 
arriving at and departing from this port by the Michigan Central, Grand 
Trunk, and Wabash Railroads are crossed on these boats. 

Six officers are employed on one of the Michigan Central, and a like 
number on one of the Grand Trunk boats, divided into reliefs of two 
men, and each relief working eight hours. On the other Grand Trunk 
boat three officers are employed, one man to each relief. On the other 
Michigan Central boat four men are employed, the extra man, when 
not needed on the boat, being assigned indifferently where most needed, 
but ordinarily he is employed to aid the regular reliefs in clearing the 
large passenger-trains arriving from the East, so that there may be the 
least possible delay and inconvenience to the travelling public. And 
right here I wish to say that, from the nature of the services required 
of these officers, by reason of exposure, especially in the winter months, 
there is always more or less sickness among them; and as there is no 
cessation in the crossing of cars, I deem it absolutely necessary that I 
should have at least one extra man for emergencies. 

The duties of these officers consist in sealing and certifying manifests 
of all east-bound cars in transit through Canada; examining car-fasten¬ 
ings, and checking of manifests of cars arriving in transit from eastern 
United States points; marking all cars to be held by customs for entry 
and inspection from Canada, as also manifested cars arriving with brbken 
seals or opened, and reporting them to officers at the freight-depots for 
detention and inspection ; examining all passengers’ baggage, collecting 
duties on articles of small value found therein on passenger-trains ar¬ 
riving, and stamping all hand baggage on trains departing through 
Canada; receiving manifests of other baggage, checking such baggage 
by the manifests, certifying the latter, and sealing up the baggage and 
keeping a complete record of all cars crossing each way. 

The time taken up in making a trip between the Windsor slip and 
the Wabash depot is about 20 minutes; the other crossings occupy be¬ 
tween nine and fifteen minutes; so that it can easily be seen that the 
officers on these boats are fully employed. Indeed, I have been im¬ 
portuned time and again by the railroad officials to assign more officers 
to these boats, but have been compelled to decline, as I had not the men 
to spare. The Wabash officials are asking now that an officer may be 
assigned to duty at their freight-depot, as there are officers at those of 
the other roads; but I am compelled to refuse, for the simple reason 
that I have no officer available. 

The business of that road justifies their request, as within the past 
year, having changed their terminus from Toledo, Ohio, to this port, 
their business here has increased in that time almost 100 per cent.; but 
I have declined asking Department for an additional man, for the reason 
that I understand such requests in the past have, if not absolutely de¬ 
clined, brought forward what I would respectfully state, in my opinion, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 171 


is an unfair objection, viz., that there is less revenue collected here, from 
the number of officers employed, than at some other places. This, I 
submit, is not a fair test. There were crossed on the railway boats at 
this port in 1884 a daily average of over eleven hundred cars. During 
the past month, with the river full of ice, over forty-two thousand , an 
average of over thirteen hundred and ninety daily , were ferried across. All 
these require the supervision of customs officers. The law requires it, 
though the Treasury derives little benefit from it.. With the force I 
have I could as easily collect twenty times the amount I do now as to 
collect what is actually collected, but the law none the less requires 
certain duties to be performed by customs officers, and the performance 
of these duties is not contingent on the revenue that may or may not 
be collected in connection with it. 

Years ago, before this railway-transit traffic had attained any great 
magnitude, the business of sealing, &c., of cars, and all the business now 
done on the boats was done on the shore at the ferry-slips. As the traffic 
increased, and at the request of the railroads, in order to facilitate their 
business, that they might the better compete with rival lines in expe¬ 
diting freights, the customs officers were transferred from offices on the 
shore to the boats. The change took place several years ago, and was in 
force when I became collector. 

If the old order was re-established, I could dispense with the services 
of four officers, and so reduce my force to what it was five years ago; 
for with all the increase in the volume of business at this port, the cus¬ 
toms force has been increased by but three officers in that time. 

Whether the Department will order a return to the old system of doing 
this railroad business on the shore, and so save the amounts paid as sal¬ 
aries to four officers, or whether it will order no change, will depend, I 
presume, on the standpoint from which the question is considered, 
whether viewed from that of naked economy in disbursements of public 
moneys and disregarding all other considerations, or whether viewed 
from the standpoint of accommodation to the great east and west rail¬ 
road lines, and the expediting of their business, and, consequently, the 
increased benefits to that portion of the public patronizing such lines. 

At the outside stations of this district, commencing at Monroe on 
Lake Erie and extending to Yew Baltimore on Lake St. Clair, eleven 
officers are employed, all this force, with the exception of perhaps one 
officer stationed at Ecorse, just below this city, I consider necessary to 
the protection of the revenue. In summing up, I am, therefore, com¬ 
pelled to say that if the Department desire to continue the present sys¬ 
tem of business, affording all the facilities that are now furnished rail¬ 
roads and transportation companies, it will be impossible to reduce this 
force. In other words, a reduction of the force must necessarily be ac¬ 
companied by a reduction in the facilities now afforded these lines. 

Referring to the matter of expenditures by way of salaries, I have 
no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, my force is no more than 
fairly paid. In conclusion, I have to state that it has been my con¬ 
stant aim since I assumed the duties of collector to carry on the busi¬ 
ness of the office with an eye single to the interests of the Government, 
and as economically as I could, keeping these interests always in view. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. LIVIYGSTOYE, Jr., 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


172 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 39. 


Custom-House, Dubuque, Iowa, 

Surveyor's Office , April 8, 1885. 


Sir : In reply to circular dated April 1, 1885, I have the honor to 
state that a readjustment of the allowance for the required force for this 
office was made on the recommendation of the proper officers, and, in 
my opinion, the force employed under my direction cannot be reduced 
without detriment to the public service, or the allowance curtailed with 
justice to those employed. There are fifteen rooms, with halls, stairways, 
and corridors, to be cleaned daily. The outside steps and sidewalks 
require daily cleaning and attention, occupying the time almost con¬ 
stantly of the janitor and the assistant janitor. The janitor is qualified 
as deputy surveyor, at a salary of $600 per annum; the assistant janitor, 
$300 per annum; and I do not think that any change could be made to 
improve the efficiency of these employes, as this building and grounds 
are kept in perfect order. I would, therefore, respectfully recommend 
that no change be made in the force of this office. 

Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 

ROBERT ARMSTRONG, 

Custodian. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 40. 


Custom-House, Duluth, Minn., 

Collector's Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of April 1, I would respectfully state 
that the force in this office was reduced (one officer) one year ago, and 
I do not see how it can be reduced further. There will be another line 
of foreign vessels (two steamers) this coming season of navigation in 
addition to the old lines of last season. 

Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Y. SMITH, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington, D. C. 


No. 41.. 

Custom-House, Dunkirk, N. Y., 

Collector's Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, relating to the reduc¬ 
tion of the “force employed under my direction,” I have the honor to 
report that there is but one person so employed in this district, under 
the designation of deputy collector and inspector. He is required to 
travel over forty mites of lake coast, and, to do it effectually, it is neces¬ 
sary to keep a horse. He also has to go to Salamanca, whenever oc¬ 
casion requires, to transfer bonded freight or open bonded cars for 




REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 173 


necessary repairs. It now takes one full day to go to Salamanca, attend 
to the necessary business, and return. The number of cars so opened 
during the last fiscal year averaged over three a week, and I think the 
average for the present year will be as great as last year. In my opin¬ 
ion, the necessity of patrolling the lake coast is very essential, as it 
prevents a large amount of illegal traffic between Canada and the United 
States by parties that would be only too glad to engage in such traffic 
were the constraint that now exists removed, of an officer of the Gov¬ 
ernment coming upon them at a time when least expected, either day 
or night. The compensation received by said officer was recommended 
by a commission appointed to examine into the needs of this district 
by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1882, and, in my judgment, is not 
too great for the faithful performance of the duties required of him. 

Very respectfully, 

A. H. ABELL, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


No. 42. 

Custom-House, Eastport, Me., 

Collectors Office , April 13, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to report, in reply to Department letter of the 
1st instant, relating to a reduction of the force employed under my 
direction and a simplification of the methods of doing business, that, 
in my opinion, there can be no reduction of the force without detriment 
to the public service; nor do I know of any way of simplifying the 
methods of doing business. 

A change in the laws relating to the marine documents issued to 
vessels can be made by which the expenses to owners will be largely 
reduced, and at the same time a reduction can be made in the force 
employed in custom-houses and elsewhere. 

The register should be the only marine paper issued to vessels. The 
issuing of enrolments and licenses serves no purpose now but to keep 
an extra force at work in making them, in keeping accounts of them at 
custom-houses and at the Department. 

Very respectfully, 

N. B. NUTT, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 43. 

Custom-House, Edenton, N. C., 

Collectors Office , April 6 , 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department letter, dated April 1, 1885, referring to 
a reduction of the present force employed in this customs district, I 
would respectfully state that this office was visited by Special Agent 




174 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


George D. Weeks some time during 1883, with a view ot making suck 
recommendations as were necessary looking to a reduction ot expendi¬ 
tures. After a careful consideration of the matter, he, with my concur¬ 
rence, recommended a reduction of one-half of the force then employed, 
which recommendation was approved by the Department. Later, in 
1884, Special Agents Tingle and Hubbs examined the affairs of this 
office, and, in relation to a reduction of force then employed, (one spec¬ 
ial deputy and one inspector,) decided it to be at its lowest minimum 
to be efficient. The waters of North Carolina are easily accessible from 
the ocean through the many inlets leading into them, and the presence 
of officers as a preventive against violations of the customs laws, if for 
nothing else, seems to me to be indispensable. In view of the fact that 
the force is small, I would respectfully request and urge that no reduc¬ 
tion of force be made in this district. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. E. ROBINSON, 

• Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 44. 

Custom-House, Edgartown, Mass., 

Collects Office, April 7, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Department’s 
letter, dated the 1st instant, calling for a report as to what extent, in my 
opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced without 
detriment to the public service, and to make such suggestions and rec¬ 
ommendations as may occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service 
may be improved and the expenses curtailed. 

After careful consideration, I beg leave to say that when I entered 
upon the duties of this office, in 1870, the force employed under my di¬ 
rection numbered seven officers and one boatman, at an annual ag¬ 
gregate compensation, including my own salary, of $6,001. A reduction 
was made from time to time in the number and compensation of these 
officers until 1883, when a sweeping reduction was made, leaving me with 
two officers only and a boatman. Subsequently, without my solicitation, 
the Department directed me to nominate for appointment an inspector 
for Tarpaulin Cove, that station having been left vacant under the re¬ 
duction last named, so that the force now employed under my direction 
numbers three officers and one boatman, to wit:" A special deputy col¬ 
lector, inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer at this port; a deputy 
collector and inspector and one boatman at Vineyard Haven; and an 
inspector at Tarpaulin Cove. The total compensation of these employes, 
together with my salary, for one year, ending March 31, 1885, was 
$2,976. 

The incidental expenses for rents, fuel, and for storage of public 
property for this office and for the deputy collector’s office at Vineyard 
Haven are extremely small, not exceeding an average of $115 per an¬ 
num. 



REPORT OF T1IE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 175 


In view of these statements, I could not feel justified in recommend¬ 
ing a decrease in the number or compensation of the small force now 
under my charge. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. B. MARCHANT, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 45. 

Custom-House, Ellsworth, Me., 

Collectors Office, April 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your printed letter of the 1st instant, I have the 
honor to report that during the last ten years the working customs force 
in this district below the collector has been reduced from seven to four, 
or nearly 43 per cent. I see no way that a further reduction can 
be made without detriment to the public service. A further reduc¬ 
tion would result not only in making the remaining officers inade¬ 
quate in numbers for the performance of the customs business, but would 
expose this district of Frenchman’s Bay, with a coast-line of one hundred 
and fifty miles following the sinuosities of the shore, to the successful 
operations of smugglers running between Nova Scotia or New Bruns¬ 
wick and this district. 

In my opinion, many of the reports from custom-houses to the Treas¬ 
ury Department which are now made monthly might just as well be 
made quarterly. Such a change would somewhat simplify the methods 
of doing business, and in large offices curtail the expenses. 

Very respectfully, 

J. D. HOPKINS, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 46. 

Custom-House, El Paso, Tex., 

Collectors Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to yours of the 1st instant, I beg leave to call your at¬ 
tention to communications of August 25, 1884, and February 11, 1885, 
explanatory of the condition of this collection district; also, letter from 
Mr. W. A. Daniel, resident of Bisbee, Ariz., forwarded the 12th in¬ 
stant, as well as report of Special Agent Evans, in December last. 
When the extent of this district is taken into consideration, the low 
water of nine months of the year in the Rio Grande below El Paso, and 
the line from El Paso to Yuma, Ariz., interspersed with mountain passes, 
affording every facility for smuggling and evasion of customs officers, 
the Department will, I think, see that the present force is inadequate 
for the protection of the Government’s interests, and much revenue to 
the Goverment is lost, while the honest importer is brought into compe¬ 
tition with the smuggler. 




176 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


I have attempted to station my force to the best advantage, yet the 
number cannot possibly protect the whole line. My impression is that 
Bisbee, Ariz., and the Bio Grande between El Paso and Presidio del 
Norte, a distance of about three hundred miles, are the most important 
points not covered. I have one mounted inspector between El Paso and 
Presidio del Norte, without an allowance for horse. I cannot expect him 
to patrol the three hundred miles. 

The increase of bonded business at this port keeps one inspector en¬ 
gaged ; another patrols the river; and the third is on duty at the bridge 
during the day. The bridge is unprotected at night, and needs another 
inspector there. Men who desire to smuggle, knowing my inability to 
guard the bridge at night, no doubt avail themselves ol this oppor¬ 
tunity. 

The clerical force in the office are competent men, and with their in¬ 
crease of duties are fully employed. I know of no manner in which 
the expenses of the district can be curtailed, excepting in the lease of 
building for custom-house, which expires June 30. I think a more 
suitable building can be had, and cheaper rent, as rents have declined 
since present lease was made. 

Very respectfully, 

W. A. SAYLOB, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 47. 

Custom-House, Erie, Pa., 

Collector's Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department’s letter of 1st instant, I beg leave to state 
that the present force in this office consists of the collector, the deputy col¬ 
lector, and the janitor. The inspectors are appointed for and during 
the season of navigation. Last season we had three inspectors. 

The Anchor Line of this port has a splendid fleet of twenty-one ves- 
vels. This is also the home port of numerous other merchant vessels ; 
also, of a large fleet of fishing steamers and yachts and of numerous pleas¬ 
ure steamers and yachts. The Anchor Line docks and elevators are the 
lake terminus of the Philadelphia and Erie Bailroad. This line, with 
its docks, elavators, fleet of vessels, connection with the Philadelphia 
and Erie and other railroads, in addition to its immense carrying trade 
of grain, flour, and general merchandise, is also a bonded line, and 
transfers, and expects to transfer this season, large quantities of bonded 
goods from bonded cars to their vessels at this port. The docks and 
elevators of this line are situated about two miles east of the Pittsburgh 
docks, and between them are three intermediate docks and landings. 

The Pittsburgh docks are the terminus on the lake of the Erie and 
Pittsburgh Bailroad. This road carries an immense tonnage of coal to 
this port for shipment on the lakes, and receives for return freight the 
large cargoes of ores constantly arriving here. 

We have the bonded warehouses of I. Weschler and of the Erie Forge 
Company, which are two miles from the custom-house, and which, in 
the receipt and withdrawal of goods, require the services of inspectors. 

Our nearness to Canada, the frequent excursions back and forth, and 
the five docks here at which vessels can land, offer peculiar temptations 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 177 


to violate the United States laws by smuggling, and create a necessity 
for vigilant and efficient inspection. 

In addition to the foregoing, there is a fine hotel, with elegant sur¬ 
roundings and scenery, at the head of the bay, four miles west of this 
city, owned by the Hon. W. L. Scott. Regular lines of steamers will 
this season run almost hourly between the public docks and this widely- 
known and popular resort. On public days and occasions the pleasure- 
steamers are liable, against the efforts and remonstrances of owners and 
masters, to be dangerously overcrowded, and require the care and pres¬ 
ence of inspectors to prevent danger. 

In view of the important facts herein stated, my opinion is that three 
inspectors at this port are absolutely necessary during the season of 
navigation, and also that the other regular officers mentioned are abso¬ 
lutely necessary, and am unable to see how the present force can be 
lessened or expenses diminished. 

I would respectfully state that, in my opinion, if a board or commis¬ 
sion could be appointed to codify and arrange the laws and regulations 
relative to United States vessels navigating the waters on the northern, 
northeastern, and northwestern frontiers otherwise than by sea, the 
methods of doing business could be simplified and the service generally 
benefited. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

HENRY C. STAFFORD, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 48. 

Custom-House, Eureka, Cal., 

Collectors Office, May 1, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department cir¬ 
cular letter of the 1st of April, 1885, requesting me to report in writing 
as soon as practicable to what extent the force employed under my di¬ 
rection could be reduced without detriment to the public service, &c. 

In reply, I would respectfully state that, besides the collector, there 
is but one other permanent officer employed in this district, viz., an 
inspector of customs, residing at the port of Crescent City. The port 
of Crescent City is about sixty miles from this port, and while there is 
no foreign trade there, there is considerable local business, with a possi¬ 
bility that contraband goods might be landed were there no officer 
stationed there. Still, such a possibility has seemed to me so unlikely 
that in a former letter to the Department, of date January 5, 1885, I 
recommended that, temporarily at least, no officer be appointed there. 
The Department, however, considered that it was best to have one there, 
and one was recommended and appointed. Under existing circum¬ 
stances, I have no recommendation to make, but would refer the De¬ 
partment to the previous correspondence had in relation to it. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. II. PRATT, 
Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

12 A 



178 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 49. 

Custom-House, Galena, III., 

Surveyors Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir: In compliance with Department letter dated April 1, 1885, 
relative to the force employed at this office, I would respectfully state 
that only one person is employed, acting as clerk and deputy, and myself 
as surveyor of customs at this port, which, in my opinion, could not he 
more simplified. 

Very respectfully, 

CHRISTOV EARNER, 

Surveyor of Customs. ' 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 50. 

Custom-House, Fall River, Mass., 

Collector's Office , April 3, 1885. 

Sir : In compliance with directions contained in Department letter 
of the 1st instant, I respectfully submit the following arrangement of 
the force of this district, viz: 


Present arrangement: 

One deputy collector and inspector, per annum. $1, 460 

One inspector, per annum. 1, 095 

One clerk, per annum. 600 

One boatman . 300 


Total. 3, 455 

Proposed arrangement: 

One deputy collector and inspector. $1, 500 

One inspector. 1, 200 

One boatman. 355 


-3,055 


Difference in favor of Government, 


400 


Very respectfully, 

JAMES BRADY, Jr., 

Collector. 


Hou. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington, D. C. 


No. 51. 

Custom-House, Fernandina, Fla., 

Collector's Office , April 11, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department’s letter of the 1st instant, I have to say 
that I know ot no way at present by which the force employed under 
my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service. 

Should it become possible to do so, in my judgment, consistent with 
the public interest, I will communicate the same to the Department at 
once. 

With reference as to whether the u methods of doing business can be 
simplified, whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and 













REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 179 


the expenses curtailed,” I have to say that I do not think of anything 
at present that would materially improve the present system now in 
use. 

I am, sir, your most obedient servant, 

J. W. HOWELL, 

Hon. Secretary" of the Treasury, Collector of Customs. 

Washington , JD. C. 


No. 52. 

Custom-House, Galveston, Tex., 

Collector's Office , April 20, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, inquiring if the 
force of employes now on duty in this district can be reduced without 
injury to the public service. In reply, I have to state that the business 
of this port has so decreased in the past nine months as to warrant a 
reduction; and I therefore recommend the discharge of one clerk and 
four inspectors, two each from the day and night forces. I would also 
suggest the discharge of the inspector at San Bernard, as it is believed 
his duties can be performed by the mounted inspector at Yelasco, who 
is but ten miles distant. 

Very respectfully, 

A. G. MALLOY, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector. 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 53. 

Custom-House, Georgetown, D. C., 

Collector's Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir : Your letter of the 1st instant, requesting a report as to a reduc¬ 
tion of the force and a simplification of the business methods of this 
office, has been received. The force in the custom-house proper con¬ 
sists of the collector, one deputy collector, and one inspector. The time* 
of myself and the deputy is fully employed in the office. The inspector 
is employed partially in the office, and. when not engaged in the office 
or in measuring vessels, gauging liquors, &c., looks after and boards 
vessels in Georgetown harbor, and attends to other outdoor matters. 

The outside force consists of one deputy collector and inspector, who 
has a desk at the foot of Eleventh street, Washington, where he re¬ 
ceives manifests on entry of coastwise vessels, and indorses new mas¬ 
ters of vessels which come to the Washington wharves. He boards ves¬ 
sels for the purpose of examining papers, and during the excursion 
season keeps a watch over the excursion steamers, with a view to pre¬ 
vent overcrowding. He also attends the freight-depots every morning, 
in order, when necessary, to release and receive bonded merchandise 
arriving from outside ports. 

The several matters contained in your letter have received my care¬ 
ful consideration, and my conclusion is that the force cannot be reduced 
without impairing the efficiency of the service, nor the business meth¬ 
ods of the office be simplified or improved. 

Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. HENRY WILSON, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 




180 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 54. 

Custom-House, Gloucester, Mass., 

Collector’s Office , April 3, 1885. 

Sir : In accordance with the circular letter of the Department of 
April 1, I would respectfully report that the service of this district 
comprises one collector, one deputy collector and inspector, one clerk, 
four local inspectors, one inspector and boarding officer, one revenue 
boatman, and one inspector located at Lockport. The district comprises 
the ports of Gloucester, Rockport, Essex, and Manchester. The number 
of vessels belonging to the district is 497; tonnage of same, 31,609. 
The number of vessels entering and clearing foreign ports is 249. 
There are sixteen private bonded warehouses for the storage of foreign 
salt. The clerical business of the office is as follows: 285 entries and 
clearances, 1,109 entries of merchandise, 38 admeasurements, 1,200 
warehouse returns requiring service of inspectors, 84 enrolments, 500 
licenses, 66 boat licenses, also a large amount of clerical work in mak¬ 
ing up returns, &c. 

In the administration of this office I should recommend, first, a fixed 
salary for the collector. He is now paid a nominal salary of $250 per 
annum and his emoluments, limited to $3,000, obtainable from fees 
and commissions. The large amount of business done at this office has 
invariably produced a sum in excess of this amount. I have pre¬ 
viously suggested this course to the special agents, but they were more 
disposed to "favor consolidation of the districts, which has always failed 
of legislative indorsement. 

In regard to the inspectors and clerical force at the office, I do not 
see how it can be reduced so long as the duty remains on salt and the 
present system of warehousing in bond and delivery upon certified re¬ 
turns exist. 

For sixteen years my officers have been the custodians and dispens¬ 
ers of the immense quantities of salt used by our fishermen, varying 
in quantity on delivery from 100 to 500 hogsheads, and I have yet to 
*kear the first complaint of lack of honest measurement from importer 
or consumer. This service necessitates the experience of trained men, 
as the conflict of interests in the matter of freight, importation, and 
delivery are all valued and settled by the officers 7 returns, which are 
accepted by all the parties. 

The expiration of the Treaty of Washington, July 1, 1885, by which 
English fish and mackerel become dutiable, necessitating the actual 
weighing of all the imported fish by the inspectors, will introduce an¬ 
other large element of service. 

During the winter months it might be possible to dispense with the ser¬ 
vice of one or more inspectors, but it would be highly probable that nu¬ 
merous exigencies would require temporary employment. As a matter 
of actual economy, I should be disposed to say that the present force 
would not be in excess of the duties required by the laws and regula¬ 
tions of the Department, especially as ttie most active portion of the 
season is at hand. 

I would also state that under the warehouse system it requires a much 
larger amount of service on the part of the Government officials than 
if the duties were paid on arrival and delivery. But as the regulations 
prescribe a constant custody of the use and disposition of the salt up to 
the time of the cancellation of the bonds, the duties of the officers are 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 181 


largely increased; and as tlie Government remits the entire duty on 
salt used in curing fisli 7 the office is without that financial return that 
should otherwise accrue to its credit. 

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

F. J. BABSON, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington, D. C. 


No. 55. 


Custom-House, Grand Haven, Mich., 

Collector's Office, April 3, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of and to reply to 
Department circular of the 1st instant, relative to the advisability of 
reducing the force of employes under my direction, &c. The only force 
under my direction consists of deputy collectors and inspectors of cus¬ 
toms, and, with the exception of two in this office, are employed at sub- 
ports in the district. Previous to 1884, the fees received at the various 
ports paid all expenses and a surplus, with the exception of Mackinac, 
Holland, and perhaps Saugatuck ; but, under the present law, chapter 
228, acts of Congress, approved July 5, 1884, the ports of Mackinac, 
Frankfort, Pent Water, Saugatuck, and Holland, if continued, will not 
pay expenses, but will be an expense to the Government. I see no 
reason why these offices should be continued, and I recommend that 
they be discontinued and abolished. 

The officer at Cheboygan is paid $2.50 per day duri ng the year. From 
about the 1st of December until about the first day of May he has nothing 
whatever to do. I therefore recommend that the office at Cheboygan 
be kept open only during the season of navigation of each year, and 
that during that time the officer be paid $3 per day. Further peril lit 
me to say that at St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, on the river, within 
about two miles of each other, are two deputies. I am of opinion one 
of the offices should be abolished, as the business and income will not 
justify a continuance of both. I would recommend that the office at 
St. Joseph be abolished, and that all the business on the river at St. 
Joseph be done at Benton Harbor. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

D. McLAUGHLIN, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. 


No. 56. 

Custom-House, Houlton, Me., 

Collector's Office, August 8, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to report, in answer to your letter of August 
3, 1885, that the force employed in this district cannot be reduced with¬ 
out detriment to the public service. Having been in office less than 
four months, I do not yet feel competent to suggest any simplification 
of the methods of doing business. The expenses of the district are now 




182 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


reduced to a minimum. The force is sufficient to do the business of 
the district, but insufficient for protection. 

The only suggestion that I have to make now has already been made 
by me—that is, to create a deputy collectorship at Fort Kent or Mada- 
waska, and to abolish the inspectorship at Madawaska. I believe that 
the revenue of the district would thereby be increased. There are 
people in that district who would report their importations and pay 
duty on them, who now smuggle them, and who would rather take this 
risk than travel fifty miles to Van Buren to enter their goods, and fifty 
miles back again, making their journeys with teams. The Department 
allows goods to be imported by lumbermen from Canada to the Seven 
Islands without inspection, and to pay at Van Buren when they come 
out of the woods in the spring on what they say they have consumed, 
as I am informed by the last collector. Some seasons they import large 
quantities, as I am informed. From Van Buren, our most northern 
port of entry, the boundary stretches one hundred miles along the rivers 
St. John and St. Francis, through settled districts, and I believe that 
the inhabitants trade indiscriminately on either bank of the river tor 
much of that distance. A deputy collector ot Fort Kent could do much 
to remedy these evils. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHK P. DONWOTH, 

Collector. 


TIon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Ko. 57. 

Custom-House, Indianola, Tex., 

Collector's Office , April 10, 1885. 

£>m: Respectfully referring to your circular letter of 31st ultimo, in 
which I am directed to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force 
employed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the 
public service, and whether the methods of doing business can be sim¬ 
plified, &c., I have the honor to report that very recently the force of 
this district was considerably reduced and the expenses curtailed as 
follows: 

By the provisions of Department’s letter of 7th ultimo, the office of deputy 
collector and mounted inspector at San Antonio, at a compensation of 


$3. 50 per diem, was abolished and the officer discharged, making an 

annual saving of. $1, 277 50 

And the boatman at Indianola, at a compensation of $40 per month, making 

an annual saving of. 480 00 

Also, by the provisions of Department’s letter of 10th ultimo, the allowance 
of $20 per month for rent of customs office at San Antonio was discontin¬ 
ued, making an annual saving of. 240 00 

And the allowance for rent of a customs office at Eagle Pass reduced from $30 

to $20 per month, making an annual reduction of.. 120 00 

On the 8th instant, in answer to Department’s letter of 1st instant, I recom¬ 


mended that the revenue boat at this port be disposed of, and that au¬ 
thority be granted me to hire a boat and boatman should occasions arise 
requiring the use of a boat. Should my recommendations in this respect 
be approved, I estimate that a saving will be effected on account of repair, 

&c., of boat of (per annum) . 50 00 


Total reduction 


2,167 50 










REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 183 


The foregoing reductions are all that can he made without great 
detriment to the service. My force now consists of eleven persons all 
told, viz: Three at Indianola, six at Eagle Pass, and two at Del Rio. 
The district extends several hundred miles along the Mexican frontier, 
which requires constant guarding and patrolling. This cannot be 
effectually done with my small force. I have always considered that 
the force on the frontier was too small, but haA r e not succeeded in having 
it increased. 


The compensation of employes is no more than should be paid, living 
expenses in Western Texas being very high, as we produce compara¬ 
tively nothing but beef, cotton, and wool. 

Referring again to the abolishment of the office of deputy collector 
and mounted inspector at San Antonio, I have to say that the commis¬ 
sion appointed in accordance with Department’s circular letter of Sep¬ 
tember 23, 1882, to inquire into the requirements of the customs ser¬ 
vice of this district, recommended the abolishment of said office, (which 
recommendation was heartily concurred in by me,) but for some rea¬ 
son,' unknown to me, no action was taken in regard to the matter. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

FRANCIS A. VAUGHAN, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, I). C. 


No. 58. 

Custom-House, Kansas City, Mo., 

Surveyor’s Office , April 3, 1885. 

Sir : In response to Department letter of 31st ultimo, requesting “ re¬ 
port as to wliat extent the force in this office could be reduced without 
detriment to the public service,” I answer that myself and one deputy 
are all that are employed here, and that the deputy is constantly on the 
go from the points on the Mississippi river where eastern railways 
centring here cross that river to the western border of Kansas, look¬ 
ing after broken-down and damaged cars carrying bonded merchandise 
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or engaged in transferring bonded mer¬ 
chandise from cars that arrive here from both east and west, generally 
disabled after the long run from either coast or the Mexican border, and 
that my whole time is required in this office; consequently it seems to 
me that no possible reduction of the present force can be made without 
serious detriment to the public service. On the contrary, this being 
the gateway of an immense traffic east and west, the demands of the 
various railways centring here for assistance from this office, and its 
constantly increasing tendency towards more business, would honestly 
justify an addition of at least one inspector of customs to the present 
force here employed, and thereby increase the efficiency of the service. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

ROB. 0. CROWELL, 
Surveyor and Custodian. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 



184 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 59. 

Custom-House, Kennebunk, Me., 

Collector’s Office, April 4, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department letter of the 81st ultimo, in regard to a 
reduction of the force in this district, I would say that there is but one 
person employed, who fills the positions of inspector, weigher, gauger, 
measurer, deputy collector, and special deputy collector, at a compensa¬ 
tion of $1.60 per day. 

There were formerly three other inspectors, at outside ports, but they 
have been discharged from time to time. 

There does not seem to be much room for further reduction without 
detriment to the service. 

Respectfully, your obedient servant, 

P. O. WIGGIN, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, I). C. 


No. 60. 

Custom-House, Key West, Fla., 

Collector’s Office , April 11, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of Department circular letter of the 3d instant, 
requesting to be informed to what extent the customs force employed in 
this district can be reduced; also, to make such suggestions and recom¬ 
mendations whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and 
the expenses curtailed. 

In reply, I beg to submit a statement showing in detail the number 
of persons at present employed, their designations and compensations, 
together with the changes proposed in the number and pay of the force, 
which, in my opinion, would result in material benefit to the customs 
service in this district. 

It will be observed that the discontinuance of the services of several 
employes is recommended. The two special inspectors at Tampa, whose 
employment was made necessary during the past winter in consequence 
of a line of passenger-steamers plying between New Orleans and Havana, 
Cuba, putting in at said port, will not be required after the 1st proximo, 
when the said steamers will probably haul off for the summer. The 
services of one revenue boatman at each of the ports of Tampa and 
Manatee can be dispensed with without detriment to the service. The 
two special night-inspectors, who have been employed almost contin¬ 
uously during the past year to patrol the south beach of this island, at 
a compensation of $3 per diem each, may be discontinued if the Depart¬ 
ment deems the curtailment of this expense necessary, although I feel 
satisfied the nightly presence of these officers has had the effect of deter¬ 
ring smugglers from attempting their nefarious operations on this here¬ 
tofore unprotected portion of this island. 

The salaries of the clerical force in the general business office should 
be increased and graded, according to the nature of their several duties, 
the length of service, and ability of the incumbent. The amounts 
paid them at present, which were fixed several years ago, when the busi- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 185 


ness of the port was comparatively small, and have since remained un¬ 
changed, are now inadequate to the labors performed or their family 
needs, and the matter of grading the salaries has appeared to me essen¬ 
tial to improve the efficiency of the office, inspire the incumbents with 
renewed energy, and instill a spirit of friendly rivalry for personal ad¬ 
vancement. 

This subject was fully represented in a communication from this 
office, dated October 28, 1884, to which I now desire respectfully to in¬ 
vite attention, and from which I quote the following: 

“In conclusion, permit me to invite attention, in support of my re¬ 
quest for additional employes and increased salaries, to the collections 
of this office during the year ended September 30,1884, over the corre¬ 
sponding period during the previous year, amounting to $61,929.02. 
This increase of receipts, representing increased business at this port, 
wffiich there is every reason to believe, from the flourishing condition 
of our cigar industry-, will continue, naturally augments the duties of 
all the employes; hence, additional labor is necessary, in order to a 
proper and efficient administration of this district.” 

The manifest indications at the date of the above-mentioned letter 
that the increased customs receipts at this office would continue has 
been fully confirmed by subsequent collections, which for the six 
months ended March 31, 1885, exceeded by $64,769.14 the receipts for 
the corresponding period ended March 31, 1884. There can be no 
doubt of the permanent commercial advancement of this island, with 
corresponding increased business and customs receipts at this office, as 
the following figures collated from the records will show: 


Total receipts during October, 1884. $27, 068 52 

Total receipts during November, 1884. 33, 792 00 

Total receipts during December, 1884. 35,110 90 

Total receipts during January, 1885. 44, 958 05 

Total receipts during February, 1885. 33, 307 19 

Total receipts during March, 1885.46, 099 84 


I therefore ask favorable consideration by the Department on the in¬ 
crease of salaries. 

Very respectfully, 

# * D. EAGAN, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , T). C. 


No. 61. 

Custom-House, La Crosse, Wis., 

Surveyors Office , April 3, 1885. 

Sir : Replying to Department circular of date March 31, I beg leave 
to report that the force employed under my direction consists of one 
deputy, without compensation, and consequently no reduction can be 
made which would curtail the expenses. 

Respectfully, 

WILLIAM R. FINCH, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. The Secretary of the Treasury. 









186 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 62. 

Custom house, Louisville, Ky., 

Surveyor’s Office, April , 4, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your circular letter of the 31st ultimo, I would state 
that the present arrangement of this office is now very satisfactory, and, 
in my opinion, it is not practicable to reduce the force employed under 
my direction. 

There are but seven persons in the surveyor’s and five in the custo¬ 
dian’s departments. A special deputy and clerk, who has general over¬ 
sight of the work in both departments, acts as cashier and liquidating 
clerk, and has charge of the correspondence; a deputy and book-keeper, 
who is also entry clerk, and makes out all accounts to be forwarded to 
the Department; an inspector, examiner, and storekeeper, who is acting 
appraiser, and has charge of the receipt and delivery of all bonded goods 
at the custom-house ; an inspector, weigher, and gauger, who attends to 
the receiving and transfer of all bonded goods at the wharf and depots, 
and to the weighing and gauging of merchandise ; a deputy and clerk, 
who has charge of the admeasuring and documenting of steamboats ; a 
messenger, who acts also as copying clerk: and a laborer, who attends 
to the disposition of bonded goods in the ware-rooms and appraiser’s 
store. In the custodian’s department there are an engineer, who is also 
night-watchman; an assistant engineer, employed eight months in the 
year; two janitors, and an elevator-conductor. 

Very respectfully, 

J. K. FAULKNER, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Day i el Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. O. 


No. 63. 

Custom-House, Machias, Me., 

Collector’s Officer , April 8, 1885. 

Sir : Department letter dated March 31, 1885, is at hand. I am re¬ 
quested to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed un¬ 
der my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service, 
&c. I have the honor to reply that the force in this district consists of 
one deputy collector and inspector employed as special deputy collector 
in this office; one deputy collector and inspector stationed at Jones- 
port; and another officer of like designation stationed at Cherryfield. 
The officer employed here is paid $3 per diem, and is on duty every 
day. He is on office duty six days in the week, but on Sundays, and in 
fact at all times, holds himself in readiness to go wherever his services 
may be required. I do not see how his services can be dispensed with 
any part of the time, nor can I recommend any reduction in the^ay. 
The officer stationed at Jonesport (twenty miles distant from this 
office) is paid $2.25 per diem. He rents an office at his own expense, 
where he enters and clears vessels, collects hospital-money, takes bonds 
and administers oaths in cases where vessels are required to change 
their papers; sends them to this office, where the papers are made and 
returned to him to be delivered to the owners or masters of the vessels. 
He is on duty every day. The station is an important one, being sit- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


187 


Rated on Mooseabec Beach, where vessels are passing and repassing 
at all times. The presence of an officer at that point doubtless pre¬ 
vents a great deal of smuggling. Some time in the year 1882, while 
serving as a deputy collector, I was designated by my predecessor to 
examine the needs of the service in this district, and report what 
changes or reductions could be made without detriment to the service. 
I then recommended that the pay of the officer stationed at Jonesport 
be reduced to $300 per annum. I fear, however, that that sum would 
not be sufficient to command the services of a competent person, who 
could and would devote the time and attention to the office which its 
importance demands. I think $450 per annum would be a fair com¬ 
pensation for the officer stationed there, and that a proper person could 
be found to serve for that sum. 

The officer stationed at Cherryfield, 28 miles distant from this office, 
is also paid $2.25 per diem. His duties are the same as those of the 
officer at Jonesport, and he also provides an office at his own expense. 
The station is not so important as the one as Jonesport. It is situated 
at the head of navigation on the Varraguagus river, and during the 
winter months, while navigation is closed, there is little for an officer 
to do, although he must be ready at all times to look after violations- 
of the revenue laws. I think a competent person might be found to 
serve at the Cherryfield station for $300 per annum. 

The officers now employed are sober, efficient, faithful, and attentive 
to their duties. I have no further suggestions to offer at present. 

Very respectfully, 

J. L. PIERCE, 

Collector . 


The Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


Vo. 64. 

Custom-House, Marblehead, Mass., 

Collector'’ s Office, April 7, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to yours of the 31st of March, would most respectfully 
state that, in my opinion, it would be detrimental to the public service 
to make reduction of employes under my direction although, during 
the winter months there is but little foreign trade, still there is about 
fifteen miles of sea-coast to guard, and some considerable time of the 
officers is employed in preventive duty. In summer we have more than 
one thousand vessels of all descriptions calling into the district, stop a 
few hours, and depart. The foreign trade with the provinces during 
the summer months is of such a nature that I should not deem it wise 
to recommend the reduction of the force in this district. Having held 
the position of collector of customs for so short a time, hardly feel my¬ 
self competent to recommend the simplification of methods of doing 
business. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

F. A. OSGOOD, 
Collector of Customs _ 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 



188 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 65. 

Custom-House, Marquette, Mich., 

Collector’s Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department's instructions of the 31st ultimo, I have 
the honor to submit the following report relative to the force of employes 
in the district of Superior, what reduction in the number can be made 
without detriment to the public service, whether the methods of doing 
business can be simplified and the expenses curtailed. 

The number of employes in the district, compared to the length of the 
coas-tline and the business done, is already too limited for the proper 
administration of the revenue and navigation laws. Following is a list 
of the offices, stations, and compensations: 

Employes, District of Superior. 


Office. 


Station. 


Compensat on. 


Remarks. 


Collector. 

Special deputy inspector.. 
Deputy collector and in¬ 
spector. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do... 

Inspector. 

Do. 


Marquette. 

.do. 

.do. 

Sault Ste. Marie- 

Detour . 

Escanaba. 

Hancock. 

Menomonee. 

Superior City. 

Ashland. 

Bayfield. 

L’Anse. 

Sault Ste. Marie.. 
.do. 


$2,500per annum. I 

$1,200per annum. Cashier, book-keeper, customs. &c. 
$1,000 per annum. Navigation,marinedocuments,&c. 

$3.30 per diem. J In charge port of delivery. 

$1.65 per diem.j In charge sub-port. 

80 cents per diem, j Do. 

80 cents per diem.! Do. 

80 cents per diem, [ Do. 

75 cents per diem. Do. 

25centsper diem. Do. 

25 cents per diem. Do. 

25 cents per diem. Do. 

$3 per diem. 1 Frontier inspectors on River St. 

$3 per diem.j j Mary, night and day. 


The district includes the entire south shore of Lake Superior, the 
St. Mary’s river, and the waters of Green bay, a distance of one thou¬ 
sand miles, approximately, and nearly all of it adjacent to Canadian 
waters j and the officers are located at most important places along the 
coast. It will be observed that the salaries paid are not extravagant or 
excessive, when taken in connection with the duties to be performed. 

Commercial intercourse with the subjects of Great Britain is annually 
increasing on this frontier, and will soon be very largely increased on 
the completion of railways now constructing. I do not see how the 
number of employes at outside ports can be reduced, for a reduction 
would involve the abolition of sub-ports; nor can I recommend a reduc¬ 
tion of the force employed at the port of entry, where day and night 
service is requisite, wherr all the records are kept, and from which all 
accounts and reports to the Department emanate. 

From January 1, 1884, to January 1, 1885, disbursements were made 
in the district for salaries, $10,135.10; rents, $350; contingent expenses, 
$243.88—total expenses, $10,728.98. During the same period the col¬ 
lections were $15,535.51. 

Expenditures for rents and contingent expenses are reduced to a mini¬ 
mum, and cannot at present be further curtailed without detriment to 
the service. 

Very respectfully, 

tt a C. T. OSBUBN, 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Collector . 

Washington, I). C. 





































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 189 


No. 66. 

Custom-House, Memphis, Tenn., 

Surveyor’s Office , April 14, 1885. 

Sir : In obedience to Department letter of April 1, 1885, requesting 
me to report to the honorable Secretary, in writing, to what extent, in 
my opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced 
without detriment to the public service, &c., I have the honor to state 
that at present the force employed under my direction cannot be reduced 
without detriment to the public service. The only employes under my 
direction are one clerk and deputy surveyor and one porter, the services 
of which are necessary to the prompt and efficient transaction of the public 
business at this port. However, the occupancy in the near future, to 
wit, about September 1, 1885, of the new custom-house at this port will 
render the service of a porter for this office unnecessary, when his ser¬ 
vices may be dispensed with without detriment to the service. I have 
the honor to state, also, that as soon as the new custom-house is ready 
for occupancy the rooms now rented by the Government for customs 
offices and examination-room, for the examination and storing of bonded 
goods, may be dispensed with, which will largely curtail the expense of 
collecting the revenue at this port, and, with the intention of so dis¬ 
pensing with the use of the rooms, referred to, in my renewing the lease 
for this year I have reserved to the Government the right to terminate 
the lease whenever the custom-house is ready for occupancy. As to 
recommendations whereby the efficiency of the service may be im¬ 
proved, I have the honor to state that, owing to my very short experi¬ 
ence in the customs service, I would feel extremely delicate in makig 
suggestions for its improvement. 

Very respectfully, 

T. F. CASSELS, 
Surveyor of Customs . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary , Washington , D. C. 


m. 67. 

Custom-House, Middletown, Conn., 

Collector’s Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to Department circular letter of April 1, 
1885, requesting a report as soon as practicable to what extent, in my 
opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced without 
detriment to the public service, and also in relation to the methods of 
doing business, to make suggestions whereby the efficiency of the service 
may be improved and the expenses curtailed, I have to state that the 
force employed during the past ten years consists of two deputies and 
one clerk, who have been fully occupied with the current business, but 
that since December 1, 1883, when the facilities for receiving merchan¬ 
dise without appraisement were extended to this district, the business 
of importing has constantly increased, and to such an extent that it is 
impossible for the present force to properly discharge the duties of the 
office. Reference to the accounts sent to the First Auditor and to the 
Bureau of Statistics, as well as to Form Ho. 198, rendered to the office 



190 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


of the honorable Secretary for the past three months, will show the 
nature and extent of the importing at this port compared with the same 
period in 1884. During the first quarter of 1884 there were twenty-one 
entries of imports for consumption, amounting to $10,621.52, while 
during the first quarter of 1885 there were fifty-nine entries for con¬ 
sumption, amounting to $20,052.67, besides seven entries for warehouse, 
with a total of nearly seventy invoices, passing through the hands of 
these officers for appraisal and collection of duties. 

So far as the methods of business are concerned, it may be necessary 
only to say that the present special deputy has been employed here for 
more than fifteen years, and the other two employes for more than five 
years, and that the business is systematized in such a way as to have 
met the thorough approval of the agents of the Department who have 
examined the office, and to secure the prompt settlement of accounts, 
without notice of error by the Auditor. 

In view of the state of business in this district, as described, I cannot 
therefore recommend the curtailment of force or expenses, but must 
rather say that an additional clerk is much needed, which has already 
been authorized by the Department. As soon as a person suitable in 
all respects can be found for the position, his name will be forwarded 
for approval. 

This matter itself would have received earlier attention, only that the 
business of the office, including the monthly and quarterly returns, has 
taken every minute of the time of all the force up to the present for its 
accomplishment. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. PUTAAM, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , J>. C. 


Ao. 68. 

Custom-House, Milwaukee, Wis., 

Colletcor’s Office , Aprils, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of Department circular dated April 1, 1885, re¬ 
questing a report in regard to possible reduction of the force employed 
under my direction, and curtailment of expenses without detriment to 
the public service. 

I have given the subject careful attention, and beg leave to respect¬ 
fully report as follows: 

The subordinate employes at this port consist of one special deputy 
collector and cashier, at $1,800 per annum; one clerk and acting ap¬ 
praiser, at $1,600 per annum; one clerk, at $1,200 per annum; one 
inspector and clerk, at $4 per day; one inspector and clerk, at $3 per 
day; one opener and packer, at $600 per annum. 

In addition to these, there are employed at outside ports of delivery 
in this district deputy collectors and inspectors as follows : 

At Green Bay, Wis., one, at $1.75 per day; at Mapstowoc, Wis., one, 
at 80 cents per day; at Sheboygan, Wis., one, at 85 cents per day; at 
Bacine, Wis., one, at $1.15 per day; at Kenosha, Wis., one, at 40 cents 
per day. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 191 


During the year ending December 31, 1884, 763 entries of imported 
merchandise, valued at over $500,000, on which the duties were nearly 
$200,000, were made at this office. Vessels to the number of 8,963 re¬ 
ported arrived, and 9,163 cleared; 350 vessels, with an aggregate ton¬ 
nage of about 70,000 tons, were licensed for the coasting trade. The 
percentage of cost of collections was about 5 per cent. 

It will readily appear that, considering the business transacted, the 
force employed is not excessive, but, on the contrary, is less than that 
at many other ports of equal or less importance. In fact, the collector 
finds it necessary to himself perform a large amount of clerical labor 
which does not usually fall upon that officer at other ports. The em¬ 
ployes at this office are efficient and faithful in the discharge of their 
various duties, and I do not see how the present small force can be re¬ 
duced without seriously impairing the efficiency of the service; in fact, 
I am of opinion that one or two additional inspectors can be advan¬ 
tageously employed during the season of navigation. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. W. HALL, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 69. 


Custom-House, Mobile, Ala., 

Collector’s Office, April 15, 1885. 

Sir : I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your communication 
of the 1st instant, in reference to the reduction of the forces at this port, 
the simplication of the details of business, and other matters tending to 
the improvement of the public service, and to say that I have thought¬ 
fully considered the entire subject, as follows: 

I. " There are in the office here a deputy collector and cashier; a deputy 
collector who also performs the duties of impost cl'erk, auditor, and 
general book-keeper and accountant in all matters relating to the public 
business; and one clerk, (marine and statistical.) The salaries paid 
those gentlemen are only on the same scale as their services would com¬ 
mand in private business, and this force has been reduced for three 
years past to the least number compatible with the public interests. 

II. Barge office .—There are now on duty in this department six in¬ 
spectors, assigned as follows ? One as boarding officer; one as acting chief 
inspector, in charge, whose duty it is, in addition to his regular duties, 
to examine the marine papers of all water-craft; and four others on 
general service, down the bay and in the harbor, as the exigency de¬ 
mands ; and three night inspectors, whose beats during their hours of 
duty cover three miles of the wharf front. 

Three years ago I found nine inspectors on duty here; I recommended 
the reduction to six, (two regular and one special.) Since that time 
there have been periods of dull business when all were not actually 
necessary; but, considering the wide extent of territory to be guarded, 
and the vigilance necessary to prevent, as well as to detect, frauds on the 
revenue, I do not deem it safe or wise to lower this force. 



192 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


III. Public store and appraisers office. —The office of storekeeper and 
acting appraiser is filled by Mr. George Coffin, who is inspector, at $4 per 
diem, and who is also admeasurer of vessels. The duties of this office 
are often very critical, but in the present state of business are not on¬ 
erous. They are, however, very necessary, but I am of opinion that 
the jier diem of the incumbent may be justly reduced to $3.50 per diem. 
In times of pressure of business Mr. Coltin takes his time of duty as 
regular inspector. 

Long ago I recommended the abolition of the barge office as a useless 
expense to the Government. I respectfully now renew the same, thus 
saving rent, light, and fuel. The inspectors may be furnished with 
good quarters in the custom-house, where they will be under the per¬ 
sonal surveillance of the collector. As acting surveyor, I much prefer 
this. The night-inspector at the office may take the place of watch- 
' man at the public building, for which the Government has been pay¬ 
ing, during winter months, $60 per month. 

Public building. —There are on duty three janitors—two at $45 per 
month, and one at $30. This building is heated by open fireplaces, and 
in winter three men are absolutely indispensable j but in summer, I am 
of opinion that two men can, by proper diligence, keep the building 
clean. I therefore recommend the discharge of the janitor at $30 per 
month. 

In my view of this matter, I am governed by the principles that 
would prevail with me if I were acting in the matter of my own private 
affairs, and I am respectfully of the -opinion that those changes only can 
be made with due regard to the interests of the public service and the 
proper protection of the revenue. 

Very respectfully, 

J. W. BIJBKE, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , B. C. 


No. 70. 


Custom-House, Nantucket, Mass., 

Collectors Office , April 7, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to the Department circular of April 1, asking for in¬ 
formation relative to the force employed in this customs district, I have 
the honor to state that there is but one deputy attached to this office, 
who also acts as special deputy collector. Inspectors are only employed 
in the event of a wreck, or other exigency requiring extra service. 
During the past year this has occurred twice, aggregating about one 
month’s extra service. I do not see how I could get along with less help. 

Very respectfully, 

ALBEBT A. GABDNEB, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, B. C. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 193 


No. 71. 

Custom-House, Nashville, Tenn., 

Surveyor'’s Office, April 6, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of your letter of 
April 1, 1885, requesting ihe to report to what extent, in my opinion, 
the force employed under my direction can be reduced without detri¬ 
ment to the public service; whether the methods of doing business can 
be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions and recom¬ 
mendations as may occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service 
may be improved and the expenses curtailed. 

In reply, I beg to report that the force under my direction cannot 
be reduced any without detriment of the service. 

I have no suggestions to make, for the reason that everything is 
moving smoothly and being done with as little expense to the Govern¬ 
ment as possible. 

Very respectfully, 

J. M. KEECHEVAL, 

Surveyor of Customs . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 72. 


Custom-House, Natchez, Miss., 

Collector'’s Office , April 7, 1885. 

Sir : Your letter of April 1, requesting me to report in writing to 
what extent the force in my employ could be reduced, beg leave to state 
that I have no employes in my office which are paid by the Govern¬ 
ment. 

Very respectfully, 

ANSELM NEUBEEGEB, 

Collector. 


The Honorable Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


No. 73. 

Custom-House, Newark, N. J., 

Collector’s Office , April 6 , 1885. 

Sir : Beferring to circular letter dated the 1st instant, in relation to 
reduction of force employed, simplification of methods of doing busi¬ 
ness, suggestions and recommendations whereby efficiency may be im¬ 
proved and expenses curtailed, I would respectfully report that the 
force of this office consists of three persons; that, in addition to the 
regular duties connected with customs, there devolves service as super¬ 
intendent of lights, and as custodian of the building, in which are three 
departments of the Government service, viz., customs, post office, and 
internal revenue ; that I have a general supervision of the office $ that 

13 A 




194 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Mr. Martin, the deputy collector, gives his whole time and attention 
to the duties connected with the service stated; and that his compen¬ 
sation of $1,200 per annum is certainly a moderate sum for the service. 

The service of the inspector is very necessary in connection with the 
duties of that position, viz., superintending the discharge of vessels 
from foreign ports, of which eighty entered during the year 1885, and 
examination of coasting vessels as to compliance with all the require¬ 
ments of the coasting trade. Mr. Van Wagner, the inspector, is an old 
employ^ of the office, and his pay is $3 per diem. 

I cannot suggest any improvement in the service or recommend cur¬ 
tailment of expenses, and believe the force of the office necessary while 
continuing a separate port of entry. 

Very respectfully, 

WILLIAM A. BALDWIN, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 74. 


Custom-House, New Bedford, Mass., 

Collectors Office , April 7, 1885. 

Sir : Beferring to your letter of the 1st instant, asking me to report 
“to what extent the force under my direction can be reduced without’ 
detriment to the public service,” &c., I beg leave to reply, that in this 
district there are only two inspectors employed. Formerly each out- 
port had an inspector at a small annual salary. These haVe all been 
removed, only the two at this port remaining. 

From this district one hundred vessels are employed in whaling and 
foreign trade, sailing under a “register;” also, one hundred and eleven 
vessels under “coasting” and “fishing licenses.” The Philadelphia 
and Beading Coal Company have “coal-packets” here for the supply 
of a large section of New England. These vessels require the super¬ 
vision of inspectors. Large and increasing quantities of merchandise 
(cordage, nails, &c.) are exported for drawback. Goods imported and 
warehoused require the services of weigher and gauger, (who also 
measures vessels for tonnage.) 

In view of the above, I am strongly of the opinion that no further 
reduction of the force employed can be made without detriment to the 
public service. 

Very respectfully, 

J. A. P. ALLEN, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 75. 

Custom-House, Newburyport, Mass., 

Collectors Office , April 11, 1885. 

Dear Sir: In reply to Department letter dated April 1, 1885, I 
would say that the force under my charge at the custom-house at this 
port consists of one inspector, who acts as deputy collector, at $3 per 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 1 ( J5 


day. and two inspectors and weighers and gaugers, at $1.65 per day. 
The deputy collector is constantly employed in the office, and the other 
two inspectors attend to the out door duties. During the winter months 
there is very little out-door work, but in the summer there is more work 
than one man can attend to. While the Government does not receive 
much revenue from this district, still there is considerable work for the 
officers during eight months in the year. About four hundred coastwise 
vessels annually arrive at and depart from the different ports in the dis¬ 
trict, which extends from Haverhill, eighteen miles from Newburyport, 
on the Merrimac river, to Ipswich, twelve miles in the opposite direc¬ 
tion. During the summer months there are twelve steamers running 
on the river, and each of these requires the attention of the officers to 
see that the regulations of the Department are complied with. For the 
year ending June 30, 1884, forty-six vessels w r ith cargoes arrived in the 
district from foreign ports, some of them discharging at Ipswich and 
some at Haverhill, but all requiring the attendance of customs officers. 
In December, 1875, one inspector was discharged, but it became neces¬ 
sary to reappoint him a few months afterwards, and he was employed 
two hundred days in the year, at $3 per day. In December, 1882, the 
pay of the two out door inspectors was reduced to $1.65 each per day, 
making the time cover the whole year, and reducing the compensation 
of these two officers from $2,190 to $1,200 per annum. As I have before 
stated, one man cannot perform all the out door duty for the district for 
the largest part of the year, and it appears to me that the present ar¬ 
rangement is as economical as any that can be made. 

With regard to the methods of doing business, I cannot see how they 
can be simplified; neither can I make any suggestions whereby the 
efficiencv of the service can be improved and the expenses further cur¬ 
tailed. 


I am, very respectfully, yours, &c., 

WILLIAM H. HUSE, 

Collector of Customs. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 76. 

Custom-House, New Haven, Conn., 

Collectors Office , April 7, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
letter of the 1st instant, in which I am requested to report to the Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the 
force under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the pub¬ 
lic service; whether the methods of doing business can be simplified; 
and to make suggestions and recommendations whereby the efficiency 
of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed. 

In reply to the* above and agreeable to request, I have to report that 
I have given the matter due consideration, and cannot find in any par¬ 
ticular where the force employed under my direction can be reduced 
without detriment to the public service. In fact, the customs affairs 
at this port, since I have had particular knowledge of them, have been 



196 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

conducted on a very economical basis. No appointments have been 
made or recommended, except when the exigency of the service actu¬ 
ally demanded they should be. 

The business of the Government at this port is conducted entirely in 
accordance with business principles. Not one cent is spent or authority 
asked for but what is actually necessary. Every employe is held to a 
strict performance of his duty. 

The general business of the port has been much increased within the 
last few years, and that without additional expense to the Government. 
I will note two particulars—the increase in the number of rewarehouse 
entries, and issue of marine documents: Number of rewareliouse entries 
at this port for fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, was 15, for fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1884, numbered 89, the last calendar year, 106. 
The issue of marine papers has largely increased by the large number 
of barges now owned at this port; and right here I will say that 120 
barges are enrolled and licensed at this port. The yearly renewal of 
all these the Government receives no compensation for whatever. I 
fail to see the justice or consistency of charging fees for the issuing of 
marine papers to one class of vessels and not to another, both being en¬ 
gaged in the same trade, and of corresponding tonnage. Furthermore, 
I fail to see the necessity at this day of the issuing at all licenses to en¬ 
rolled vessels to pursue a coastwise trade. Formerly, I find, registered 
vessels were likewise licensed. Why should not the law be repealed 
which requires coastwise vessels to take out a yearly license, the enrol¬ 
ment being sufficient. Thus will the Government be saved a great ex¬ 
pense for clerical work, and at the same time relieve the embarrassed 
shipping interests from the petty fees now collected. 

Finally, as to the simplifying of and improvement of the present 
methods of doing the business: The present system is evidently an old 
one, which has been engrafted onto from time to time until it has become 
cumbersome. The improvement, in my opinion, should be begun at the 
root, or a new system should be adopted, after a careful examination by 
a competent commissioner, and one more in accordance with the modes 
of doing business at the present day. I have no doubt one could be 
devised less complicated and giving equal protection to the Government. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. J. BEERS, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. 


No. 77. 

Custom-House, New Haven, Conn., 

Collector’s Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
letter of the 4th instant, in which I am instructed to furnish a full and 
comprehensive report relative to the number, condition, and necessity 
for service of any revenue boats in my collection district—questions to 
the number of twelve being given, to which I am instructed to submit 
answers, which are thus given: 

1. Number of boats.—Answer. Two; 1 sail-boat and 1 row-boat. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 197 


2. Where stationed. —Answer. This port. 

3. Original cost.—Answer. Sail boat, $136; row-boat, $15. 

4. When and where built.—Answer. New Haven, Conn., 1879. 

5. Kind and rig.—Answer. One row-boat; one sail-boat, spit sail. 

6. Style of bnild.—Answer. Sail boat, jolly-boat style. 

7. Material of which built.—Answer. Sail-boat, oak and pine; row¬ 
boat, entirely of white pine. 

8. Dimensions.—Answer. Sail boat, 18 by 41 feet; row-boat, about 
8 by 3 feet. 

9. Size, description of sail, and condition.—Answer, twelve feet 
each way; condition, good. 

10. Number of oars.—Answer. Three pairs. 

11. Present condition of each boat.—Answer. Good, except both 
need painting. 

12. When last repaired.-—Answer. No repairs to either since built, 
with the exception of a coat of paint to each every spring. 

The necessity for the service of the revenue-boats exists in the fact 
that it is, and always has been, the practice at this port from time to 
time to board vessels bound inward with foreign cargoes before they ar¬ 
rived at the wharf, and if suspected of being engaged in smuggling, 
board them three miles or more outside and before they were taken in 
tow. The vigilance of the boarding officers at this port for some years 
has been such that substantially all smuggling is prevented. The boats 
are also necessary for boarding vessels lying at quarantine, and coast¬ 
wise vessels lying in the stream. They are used in transferring officers 
from one wharf to another; half mile in one case, in another one mile 
intervening. Now, in reference to their sufficiency, I will say that the 
small row-boat is but of very little use, being entirely too small, and was 
only intended for a tender for the sail-boat. It is wholly unsafe, even in 
the harbor, when it is at all rough. I would recommend it be sold 
and a row-boat of larger dimensions be purchased for use at this port. 
The boatman at this port is an old sailor, and is appointed as night- 
watchman and boatman, at a salary of $400 per annum. When more 
than one foreign vessel is in port, he is employed in assisting the night- 
inspector. On the whole, I am fully persuaded that the present good 
efficient service could not be maintained with less expense for the same 
than at present. 

In closing, I beg again to call attention to the matter of replacing the 
row-boat and painting of sail boat, or both if retained. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. J. BEERS, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


No. 78. 

Custom-House, New London, Conn., 

Collector’s Office , April 8, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your communication of April 1, I have the honor to 
report that the only practicable reduction that can be made in the force 
employed in this district is by the abolition of the office of inspector at 
Norwich. Such a reduction is not only practicable, but, in my opinion, 


198 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


should be made in the interests of economy, and would not in the 
slightest measure impair the efficiency of the service. The office is a 
sinecure, and all the duties devolving upon inspectors in this district 
can be discharged by the two inspectors stationed at New London. At 
this time I have no further suggestions to make to the Department. 

Yerv respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

JOHN A. TIBBITS, 

Collector . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington. D. C. 


No. 79. 

Custom-House, New Orleans, La., 

Collector’s Office, April 16, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of Department’s letter 
of the 1st instant, asking for a report, as soon as practicable, as to what 
extent the force employed in the customs service at this port can be re¬ 
duced without detriment to thepublic interests ; whether the methods 
of doing business can be simplified; and for any suggestions and recom¬ 
mendations whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and 
the expenses curtailed. 

While I am aware that the percentage of cost of collecting the reve¬ 
nue from customs at this port is comparatively large, I beg to call at¬ 
tention to the fact that a large portion of the merchandise entered, 
appraised, and weighed at this port is destined for transportation in 
bond to other ports in the United States. While this port bears the 
expenses of handling such merchandise, the port of final destination is 
credited with the duties collected thereon. In the matter of exports, 
this port is second in the country, and much clerical labor is necessary 
to prepare the statistical reports for the Bureau of Statistics. 

The force at this port has been reduced from time to time during the 
six years of my incumbency, until it seems difficult, with the present 
volume of business, to point out where further material reductions can 
be made without impairing the efficiency of the service. In 1883, (vide 
Department’s letter of May 5, 1883,) a material reduction was made in 
the force of employes at this port; and again in 1884, (vide Depart¬ 
ment’s letfer of January 12, 1884,) a further reduction was made. In 
Recent years the expense of collecting the revenue from customs at this 
port has averaged about 10 per cent, annually. For twenty years prior 
to my administration the cost of collection was from 15 to 18 per cent, 
annually. 

In letter from this office dated November 30, 1883, among other re¬ 
ductions I recommended “that the services of one assistant appraiser at 
this port (A. F. Biard) could be dispensed with without detriment to 
the service. ” It is proper to add that this is a Presidential appoint¬ 
ment. Appraiser Souer, in his report, enclosed herewith, suggests that 
the services of this assistant appraiser could be dispensed with and an 
examiner appointed in his stead. I concur with the appraiser that the 
services of Mr. Biard can be dispensed with, but, in my opinion, the 
appointment of an examiner is not necessary, at least for the present. 

A. further reduction in the number of clerks would militate against 
the prompt transaction of business. In the collector’s department 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 199 


proper the clerical force has been reduced from time to time to its present 
skeleton condition. (See Deputy Collector Crawford’s report, enclosed 
herewith.) It is believed, however, that a slight reorganization may 
be had in Mr. Crawford’s department, to the end that the work in ail 
the divisions be fully kept up by temporary transfers or assignment of 
clerks from one division to another. This is hardly practicable until 
the extra work entailed by the Exposition business has been disposed of. 

A small reduction can be made during the dull summer season in the 
force of inspectors and weighers, but it is questionable whether it is 
expedient to discharge experienced officers of these grades, where the 
force of such officers would have to be increased to the original number, 
and possibly inexperienced persons taken for that purpose, on the 
revival of business in the fall. It is suggested, however, that the ser¬ 
vices of three inspectors, four night-inspectors, and two assistant 
weighers be dispensed with, say, to take effect on the first of July, the 
vacancies thus created to be filled, when necessary, in the fall. 

No reference is made above to the large number of temporary officers 
and laborers on the register of employes at this port, whose employ¬ 
ment was necessitated by the examination, &c., of foreign merchandise 
at the Wold’s Exposition,,and whose terms of service expire at the 
close. 

The business at this port is transacted strictly in accordance with the 
revenue laws and customs regulations, and conforms to the practice at 
all the large ports of the country. I have no further suggestions to 
offer whereby the methods may be simplified, or where expenses can be 
curtailed beyond the recommendations before mentioned in this report. 
I am of opinion that a further reduction of compensation of employes 
here would be false economy. 

Reports from the appraiser, the special deputy collector, the deputy 
collector, and tire auditor are enclosed herewith. 

Very respectfully, 

A. S. BADGER, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secret-ary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. 


No. 80. 

Custom-House, New Orleans, La., 

Collector's Office, April 16, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your inquiry, I beg to state that, in my opinion, the 
force now employed in the customs service here cannot be reduced 
without detriment to the public interests. As you are aware, the num¬ 
ber of employes has been reduced from time to time until now, at many 
of the desks, the clerks are compelled to work overtime in order to 
keep up the current business. 

I have no recommendation to make looking to a change in the present 
methods of doing business. 

Very respectfully, 

THO. C. ANDERSON, 

Special Deputy Collector. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, 

Collector of Customs, New Orleans, La. 



200 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 81. 

Port of New Orleans, La., 

Naval Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir: Department circular dated April 1, 1885, relative to reduction 
of force and simplification of the method of doing business, is this day 
received. 

In reply, I would state that, in my opinion, no further reduction of 
the clerical force of this office, nor of the compensations paid, is prac¬ 
ticable without detriment to the public service. 1 am unable to suggest 
any change in the methods of transacting the business of the office 
whereby the expenses may be curtailed and at the same time the 
efficiency of the service maintained or improved. 

Yery respectfully, 

A. J. DUMONT, 

Naval Officer. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 82. 

Custom-House, New Orleans, La., 

Surveyor's Office , April 7, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communi¬ 
cation of the 1st instant, requesting me to report to what extent the 
force under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the 
public service, &c. 

In my opinion, the present force of my office cannot be reduced with¬ 
out detriment to the public service. It has been from time to time 
reduced in numbers, and the compensation also lowered, to an extent 
hardly equalled at any port covering the extent of area and transacting 
the amount of business done here. This is evidenced by the fact that 
for the year 1872 the force of customs inspectors numbered 131, at a 
compensation of $3 and $4 per diem ; for 1873, 102 inspectors, at $3, 
$3.50, and $4; and for 1874, 105 inspectors, at the same rates of com¬ 
pensation, while the present force consists of but 52 inspectors, at 
greatly reduced salaries. 

The fluctuations of arrivals at this port slacken business at intervals, 
but the lull is counterbalanced by the rush of business which follows, 
Not infrequently, I have been compelled to place tallymen, outside of 
the regular force, on the wharves, and call upon my clerks, who could 
be illy spared from their office duties, to superintend transportations 
under bond, which branch of the business is very large at this port. 

In the estimate of cost for the collection of duties at this port as com¬ 
pared with the amount of cash received for same, it should be remem¬ 
bered, to our advantage, that vast quantities of imports in transportation 
to other custom-houses under “immediate,” “warehouse,” and trans¬ 
portation bonds entail a heavy amount of labor at this port, without any 
credit for the amount of cash collected on this merchandise at the port 
of final destination. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 201 


It does not occur to me that any change in the methods of transacting 
the business of this office could be made which would improve the effi¬ 
ciency and lessen the expenses entailed. 

Yery respectfully, 

P. B. S. PINCHBACK, 

Surveyor of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 83. 

Custom-House, Newport, R. I., 

Collector’s Office , April 21, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
letter of 1st instant, and submit the following report: 

The only reduction that can be made is in the offices of inspectors 
and boatman. Newport has a long range of unprotected shore, and the 
harbors in the district are continually visited by foreign and domestic 
vessels, and it seems necessary to maintain the offices of inspectors and 
boatman, whose duties are in the line of preventive service, unless it is 
considered by the Department advisable to abolish or reduce the ex¬ 
penses of the same, the expediency of which is a question. It is true 
that Newport is a non-paying port, but if it could have the benefit of 
the act of June 10, 1880, “immediate transportation of dutiable mer¬ 
chandise in bond without appraisement,” (which could be done by the 
designation of an officer as appraiser,) its receipts would be largely in¬ 
creased and its inhabitants greatly accommodated. 

The force under my direction, payable from the appropriation “ex¬ 
penses of collecting of the revenue from customs,” and their duties, are 
as follows: 

One deputy collector and clerk, salary $1,000 per annum, employed 
daily at the custom-house in attending to the routine business of the 
office, and it is essential for the proper conduct of business that no 
change be made. 

One inspector at Newport, salary $3 per day, say $1,095 per annum. 

One occasional inspector at Newport, salary $3 per day when em¬ 
ployed, say $360 per annum, (only employed in superintending the un¬ 
lading of vessels, or remaining on vessels froqi foreign ports that arrive 
for a harbor.) 

One boatman at Newport, salary $400 per year; in regard to whom 
would refer to my letter to the Department dated September 10, 1884. 

One inspector at North Kingstown, salary 80 cents per day, say $292 
per year. 

These officers are employed in the line of preventive duty, and should 
be retained unless, in the opinion of the Department, they can be re¬ 
duced without detriment to the interests of the Government, 

On inspector at Dutch Island Harbor, salary $1.65 per day, say 
$602.25 per annum. This harbor is about four miles from Newport, and 
is a resort for a large number of foreign as well as domestic vessels as a 
shelter from storms, &c., and it is absolutely necessary that a customs 
officer should be stationed there. 



202 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In addition to the foregoing officers, payable from the appropriation 
named, employed in this district, there are— 

One acting assistant surgeon, United States Marine-Hospital Service, 
salary $250 per annum, who is daily employed in attending to all sea¬ 
men admitted to the hospital, and also in treating such seamen as require 
u out-treatment, 7 ’ and it is certainly to the best interests of the Govern¬ 
ment that the office be maintained. 

One janitor, salary $600 per annum, on duty at custom house daily, 
employed in keeping building clean and attending to the steam-heating 
apparatus, &c., and it is necessary for the proper care of the building 
that no change be made. 

I have given as concisely as possible a list of offices and the duties, 
and can suggest no curtailment without detriment to the service, pre¬ 
ferring to leave the matter entirely to the Department with above ex¬ 
planation, all of which I sincerely trust will be approved. 

Respectfully, 

J. H. COZZENS, 

Collector . 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 

Washington , I>. C. 


No. 84. 

Custom-House, Newport News, Va., 

Collectors Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
letter of April 1, 1885, requesting me to report to what extent the force 
of this office can be reduced without detriment to the public service, 
and if the methods of doing business can be simplified, &c. 

In reply, I desire to say that, in my opinion, it is not advisable to 
reduce the force of employes attached to the office, as they are all 
requisite for the proper performance of the routine business of this 
office. 

As to the method of doing business, I have nothing to suggest that 
would seem to improve the efficiency thereof. 

Verv respectfully, 

H. DeB. CLAY, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, I). C. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 203 


No. 85. 

Custom-House, New York, 
Collector’s Office , May 29, 1885. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st ultimo, 
calling upon me to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force em¬ 
ployed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the 
public service, and whether the methods of doing business can be sim¬ 
plified, and whether I have any recommendation to make, whereby the 
efficiency of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed. 

I herewith submit reports from the heads of the several divisions of 
the collector’s department, and one from the surveyor, from which it 
will be seen that, in the opinion of these officers, no reduction can be 
made at this time without detriment to the service. These reports are 
based upon the present condition of the force, making due allowance 
for such temporary absences on account of sickness as are reported 
monthly to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury. 

I submit a list of sixty-nine vacancies now existing in this office, most 
of which have occurred at intervals during my term. 

The salaries of these positions aggregate nearly $90,000 annually, and 
the list represents the reduction of force which I have been able to make. 
Any further reduction at this time would, in my opinion, be injudicious. 

The expense of collecting the revenue at this port has been during my 
term at a lower rate than for any previous four years, and for the first 
fiscal year of that term about one-quarter of 1 per cent, less than for 
any previous year. The simplest methods of business consistent with 
the safety of the revenue have been adopted from time to time as they 
have suggested themselves, and I have, therefore, no recommendation 
to make at present in that respect. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. H. ROBERTSON, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector . 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


No. 86. 


Custom house, New York, 
Collector’s Office , April 11, 1885. 


Sir : In compliance with your request of April 8, to report in writ¬ 
ing to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under my direc¬ 
tion can be reduced without detriment to the public service, I would 
respectfully state that I see no way in which the force under my direc¬ 
tion can be reduced. In fact, the labor force could be increased to great 
advantage by the appointment of four women to do scrubbing. But if 
the system of heating and lighting the building should be changed to 
steam and electricity, four firemen and one engineer could be dispensed 
with. Whether that would be a reduction of expense or not I am un - 
able to say without further facts as to proposed changes. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEORGE HILLIER, 

Superintendent . 


Hon. W. H. Robertson, 

Collector , &c. 



204 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 87. 

Custom-House, New York, 

United States Public Stores, 

402 Washington Street , May 18, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your letter of the 8th ultimo, wherein you direct 
me to 44 report in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the force em¬ 
ployed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the 
public service,” 44 whether the methods of doing business can be 
simplified,” &c., I would respectfully state that the following consti¬ 
tute the present force in this division : 


One chief clerk. 

One clerk and cigar inspector. 

One correspondence clerk. 

Four clerks. 

Eight clerks. 

Sixteen clerks. 

One clerk. 

Two carpenters. 

Nine messengers. 

Three messengers.. 

One scrubber. 

Thirty watchmen. 

One watchman. 

One engineer. 

One assistant engineer. 

Seven foremen. 

Two searchers. 

Six book-keepers. 

Seven elevator-men. 

Eighty-two laborers. 


Salary. 

$2, 500 00 per annum* 
2, 000 00 per annum* 
1, 800 00 per annum- 
1, 600 00 per annum* 
1, 400 00 per annum* 
1, 200 00 per annum- 
1, 000 00 per annum- 

3 00 per diem. 

840 00 per annum. 

720 00 per annum. 

45 00 per month. 

3 00 per diem. 

2 75 per diem. 

1, 200 00 per annum. 

3 00 per diem. 

2 50 per diem. 

2 50 per diem. 

2 50 per diem. 

2 50 per diem. 

2 00 per diem. 


Since March 1 there has been a reduction of two clerks, by resigna¬ 
tion, at salaries of $1,200 and $1,400, respectively, and I am informed 
that another intends to send in his resignation, to take effect on June 1 
proximo. Another vacancy occurred on May 1 by the death of Lewis 
McLoughlin, watchman. 

As the business of the stores is comparatively light at this time, I 
would recommend that the four vacancies thus made remain unfilled, 
thus making a reduction of four in the division. 

I think of no changes that could be adopted at this time that would 
materially add to the efficiency of the service, as I have already, from 
time to time, made such changes as, in my judgment, might contribute 
to that end. 


As you are perhaps aware, the present classification and organization 
of the force in this division was arranged and perfected some four years 
ago, by a commission appointed by the then Secretary of the Treasury, 
and of which Mr. E. O. Graves was the chairman. Very few changes 
have since occurred. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. A. JONES, 

Deputy Collector. 

Hon. W. H. Robertson, 

Collector of the Port. 






















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 205 
No. 88. 

Custom-House, New York, 
Collector’s Office, April 14, 1885. 

Sir : In compliance with direction in your letter of the 8th instant, 
that report be made as to what extent the force employed in this (seventh) 
division can be reduced without detriment to the public service, and 
whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and to make 
suggestions whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and 
the expenses curtailed, I beg to say: 

First. That in my judgment the force now employed in the division 
is inadequate to perform the service required by the laws and regula¬ 
tions. 

Second. I can hardly see how the methods of doing the business of 
the division can be made more simple than now, having in view the 
safety of the revenue. 

Third. In my opinion, in order to enable the division to perform the 
services required of it, the expenditure should be increased rather than 
diminished. 

I am, very respectfully, 

GEO. W. PALMER, 

Deputy Collector , Seventh Division. 

Hon. Wm. H. Robertson, 

Collector. 


No. 89. 

Custom-House, New York, 
Collector’s Office , April 11, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your communication of 8th instant, requiring me 
to report in writing “to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed 
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public 
service; whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and, 
in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur 
to me whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and the 
expenses curtailed ,” I desire respectfully to submit the following state¬ 
ment : 

The present force of this division consists of twenty-five employes, 
including one messenger. While the business of the division during 
the last few years has materially increased, the force composing it remains 
about the same numerically as when I first took charge of it, in 1873, 
and is no greater at the present time, in my opinion, than is absolutely 
required to discharge properly the duties of the various desks. The 
amount of work to be performed in the division depends on the number 
of invoices received. The total number received during the last three 
years exceeds that of the preceding three years a little over 19 per cent., 
and the total number of the last five years exceeds that of the preced¬ 
ing five by 51 per cent. The triplicate invoices received from the vari¬ 
ous consuls have, of course, proportionately advanced in number. Cer¬ 
tain changes in the records kept of the latter, chiefly growing out of the 
requirements of the Fifth Auditor's Office, have also added largely to 
the duties of the division. 



206 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In relation to the methods of transacting the business of the division, 
such changes have been made in that respect, from time to time, as were 
found expedient, and the present system is, I consider, as near perfect 
as can well be arranged. 

I have no important suggestions or recommendations to make. 

Very respectfully, 

B. F. WYMAN, 

Deputy Collector , in charge of Sixth Division. 

Hon. Wm. H. Robertson, 

Collector. 


No. 90. 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collector's Office , April 15, 1885. 

Sir : In accordance with your instructions of the 8th instant, I have 
the honor to report that the force of entry clerks employed in this divis¬ 
ion consists of one chief entry clerk and thirteen entry clerks. This 
number has been reduced since the 1st instant—by resignation, one; by 
death, one—leaving the actual working force in the rotunda at eight 
entry clerks, three entry clerks being on special duty, viz., one at 
free-permit and appraiser’s desk, and two on steamer duty. 

This force is sufficient for the present state of business here, and I 
therefore recommend that these two vacancies remain open. 

The bond and minor clerks and messengers are not in excess of the 
demands of the division, and I have no changes to suggest in regard to 
them. 

| The report of the chief of the liquidating bureau is enclosed and ap¬ 
proved by me. 

Very respectfully, 

N. B. BARTRAM, 

Deputy Collector , Fifth Division. 

Hon. Wm. H. Robertson, 

Collector , &c. 


No. 91. 

Custom house, New York, 

Collector's Office , March 11, 1885. 

Sir : In compliance with your instructions of the 10th instant, as in¬ 
dorsed upon letter from the collector dated the 8th instant, and ad¬ 
dressed to you, I have the honor to report that the number of clerks 
and messengers assigned to the liquidating bureau is not in excess of 
its requirements for a prompt and efficient discharge of the public busi¬ 
ness; that no simplification in the “methods” of doing business sug¬ 
gests itself except the following, viz : 

That warehouse entries and invoices, which at present are separately 
filed in the auditor’s department, the sixth division, and record-room, 
be filed together for a period of one year, or until the closing of the 
bond, either in the auditor’s department or the third division. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 207 


II the plan suggested is adopted, it would facilitate the business of 
this bureau in checking the correct dutiable value of withdrawals for 
export, which, in many instances, necessitates the use of the original 
warehouse entry and invoice. 

Y ours, respectfully, 

H. E. ESTEBBBOOK, 

Col. N. B. Bartram, Chief Liquidating Cleric. 

Deputy Collector , Fifth Division. 


No. 92. 

Custom-House, New York. 

Collector’s Office, April 13, 1885. 

Sir : I have received your requisition of the 8th instant, based upon 
letter of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

The fourth division is small and compact, and I am unable to recom¬ 
mend any reduction. I have never favored the addition of supernu¬ 
meraries. It was cut down some years ago, and there has been no addi¬ 
tion to its clerical force since, although, in my judgment, an additional 
clerk has been needed. The methods of business seem to me to be as 
simple as is consistent with orderly and accurate dispatch of business, 
and the salaries are below rather than above appropriate rates. 

Very respectfully, 

BICHABD WYNKOOP, 

Deputy Collector , Fourth Division. 

Hon. Wm. H. Bobertson, 

Collector , District of the City of New York. 


No. 93. 

Custom-House, New York, Collector’s Office, 

Third Division , April 22, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, requesting a 
report as to what extent the force of this division can be reduced with¬ 
out detriment to the service, and whether the methods of transacting 
the business can be simplified. 

I have carefully considered the subject, and am fully convinced 
that the numerical force employed in this division cannot be reduced 
without detriment to the service j but I am prepared to recommend 
several changes in the personnel of the force which would greatly en¬ 
hance its efficiency. The bulk of the business in this division is the 
current work of the day, and for its prompt and intelligent performance 
the clerks employed should be punctual, and be interested in their work. 
With few exceptions, such is the condition of things in this division. 

The work has been simplified as far as possible in past years, and no 
new changes suggest themselves at present. 

I am, very respecfully, 

F. H. WIGHT, 

Deputy Collector , and ex-officio Storekeeper of the Fort. 

Hon. William II. Bobertson, 

Collector of the Port. 




208 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 94. 

Custom-House, New York, Collector’s Office, 

Second Division , April 17, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of the 8th instant, I would say that, in my 
judgment, the force now employed in this division cannot be reduced 
without detriment to the interests of the Government, or without incon¬ 
venience to the importers. It is true that on days when business is 
dull, and during the early morning hours, all the clerks may not be 
actively employed. But on busy days, and during the closing hours of 
every day, there is abundant work for all, and the effect of a reduction 
would be to detain importers, to delay our deposit at the sub-treasury, 
and to increase the liability of errors. 

The method of doing business in this office is the result of many years’ 
study and experience on the part of my predecessor, and I have nothing 
to suggest by way of improving or modifying it. I believe it to be well 
adapted to the purposes to be accomplished, and as simple as is con¬ 
sistent with safety to the vast interests involved. 

Very respectfully, 

JOSEPH BARRETT, 

Hon. W. H. Robertson, Cashier . 

Collector , &c. 


No. 95. 


Custom-House, New York, Collector’s Office, 

First Division , Auditor's Department , April 13, 1885. 


Sir : In reply to your communication of the 8th instant, I have the 
honor to state that in conducting the affairs of this division, the busi¬ 
ness of which, in addition to the disbursement of moneys, includes the 
verifying, condensing, and correct rendering of all the accounts of yonr 
office, it has always been my endeavor to take advantage of every sug¬ 
gestion, from whatever source, tending to simplify and expedite the 
routine of business, so that changes having been made from time to 
time as occasion arose, at present I can think of no improvement to 
recommend. 

In a modern building, with all the clerks of this division located in 
convenient proximity to each other, the work could be more advan¬ 
tageously distributed and the force doubtless be reduced. At present 
the clerks are scattered all over the building, occupying ten different 
rooms on four separate floors, so that, notwithstanding the most careful 
supervision, the business of the division is conducted under great dis¬ 
advantages, and i do not think any reduction could be made without 
detriment to the public service. 

Very respectfully, 

CHARLES TREICHEL, 

Auditor. 


Hon. William II. Robertson, 

Collector of the Port. 


It is proper to add that the above was written on the understanding 
that the vacancies caused by the death of Mr. Horton and the promo¬ 
tion of Mr. Morrison are not to be filled. 

C. TREICHEL, 

Auditor. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE. TREASURY. 209 


No. 96. 

• Custom-House, New York City, 

Surveyor’s Office , May 16, 1885. 

Sir : Your letter dated April 8, 1885, referring to a letter from the 
honorable Secretary of the Treasury, dated April 1,1885, requesting from 
you a report in writing as to what extent, in your opinion, the force 
employed under your direction can be reduced, and requesting me to 
make a similar report to you “so far as it relates to officers, although 
appointed by the collector, are under your [my] supervision and direc¬ 
tion,” w r as duly received. 

Section 2627 of the Revised Statutes provides “that it shall be the 
duty of the surveyor, who shall in all cases be subject to the direction 
of the collector, first, to superintend and direct all inspectors, weighers, 
measurers, and gaugers within his port,” and as to the said officers I 
have to report as follows: 

Weighers .—The number of w r eighers is 4; assistant weighers author¬ 
ized, (Department letter of February 19, 1885,) 84; the number now' 
employed, 66; vacancies, 18; foreman of assistant weighers, 4; and there 
are employed, as occasion requires, a valuable number of sworn tempo¬ 
rary assistant weighers and laborers, at a fixed compensation per hour 
when employed. 

The following statement shows the quantity, in tons, of weigliable 
merchandise returned by the weighers, and the expenses of weighing, 
in the years stated, viz : 


Year ending June 30— 

Number of tons 
returned b y 
weighers. 

Expenses. 

Weighers, assist¬ 
ant weighers, 
temporary as¬ 
sistants, and 
repairs. 

For labor. 

Total. 

Cost per 
ton. 

1883 ... 

Tons. 

2,085,224 
2,056,000 

$160,721 43 
150,751 00 

*$131,225 29 
f154,574 10 

$291,946 72 
305,325 10 

Cents. 

14 

14 8-10 

1884 . 



* Labor at 25 cents per hour, when employed, f Labor at 30 cents per hbur, (Department letter 
to collector, dated May 9, 1883.) 


Gaugers .—The number of gaugers is 3; assistant gaugers, 12; laborers, 
44. The following statement shows the quantity, in gallons, of gaugeable 
merchandise returned by the gaugers, and the expenses of gauging, in 
the years stated, viz : 


Calendar year— 

Imports. 

Exports. 

Transporta¬ 
tion to other 
ports. 

Expenses. 

From ware¬ 
house. 

Spirits. 

Gaugers, as¬ 
sistants, and 
repairs. 

For labor. 

1888 . 

Gallons. 

17,060,981% 

14,868,058 

Gallons. 

2,643,914 

4,480,428% 

Gallons. 

2,760,838 
6,989,484 

Gallons. 
96,200% 
29,667 

$21,077 06 
19,719 56 

$28,307 50 
37,475 50 

1884. 



The number of stamps affixed (on the wharves or in warehouses) to 
packages of imported distilled spirits, wines, and malt-liquors was, 
appoximately, 129,000. (Section 11, act of March 1,1879, and Synopsis, 
3939.) 


14 A 




























210 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Inspectors .—The number of inspectors authorized (Department letter 
of February 19, 1885) is 820; number at present employed, 313; vacan¬ 
cies, 7. The daily average number employed in the year 1884 was 319, 
who were assigned to various duties, viz : 


A. As discharging officers of vessels with general cargo..». 154 

B. To the debenture-room. 32 

C. Staff officers, acting deputy collectors... 10 

D. As boarding officers. 3 

E. To the gaugers. 3 

F. As officers of the night-w r atch. 3 

G. To Castle Garden. 8 

H. As district officers. 84 

I. To other departments. 4 

J. On special duty searching vessels. 3 

K. On other temporary special duties.... 4 

L. There were sick and disabled. 4 

M. Absent with leave. 7 


The whole number of vessels that arrived from foreign ports in 1884 
was 6,035, of which 2,137 were steamships, and 3,898 were sailing-vessels. 

Of the steamships, 1,813, and of the sailing-vessels, 937 were discharged 
under the supervision of inspectors (A) specially assigned (in rotation) 
thereto. [Regulations of 1883, (Cat. No. 952,) articles 42-236, inclusive. ] 
The discharging inspectors were also detailed, when “waiting for 
assignment” to vessels, to examine the baggageof 69,100 cabin-passen¬ 
gers arriving in steamships. The entries of cabin-passengers’ baggage 
are made under the direction of the staff inspectors designated by the 
collector as acting deputy collectors, (C.) Baggage entries are usually 
made on the vessels arriving before the passengers land therefrom. 

The inspectors assigned to the debenture-room (B) examined and 
supervised the transfer of merchandise for which 59,352 entries had been 
made and recorded in the debenture-room. [Regulations of 1883, (Cat. 
No. 952,) articles 293-301, inclusive, and articles 435-545, inclusive.] 


Exports from warehouse, &c.:. 15,719 

Exports from warehouse, (drawbacks). 255 

Exports from manufactory w arehouse, class 6. 2, 571 

Exports for internal-revenue drawback. 5, 327 

Exports for tariff drawback .. 16, 832 


Transportation to other ports, immediate transportation and from warehouse... 18, 648 

The boarding officers (D) [Regulations of 1883, (Cat. No. 952) arti¬ 
cles 24-21, inclusive] examined and certified the manifests and copies 
of 4,647 vessels, which were boarded by them from the revenue steamers, 
and of 1,388 vessels whose manifests and copies were delivered by the 
masters of the vessels to them at the barge office. 

The inspectors assigned to the gaugers to supervise the shipment ot 
domestic distilled spirits entered for export (E) [Customs Regulations 
of 1884, articles 797-801, inclusive] certified to the lading under their 
supervision of 161,639 barrels and other packages. 

The inspectors designated to be officers of the night-watch (F) [De¬ 
partment’s letter to collector, dated March 2,1875] performed the duties 
required of them as set forth in articles 406, 407, and 408 of the Regu¬ 
lations of 1883, (Cat. No. 952.) 

The inspectors assigned to duty at Castle Garden (G) examined upon 
the wharves where it was landed the baggage and effects of 320,807 
steerage passengers. 





















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 211 


The port of New York is divided in fifty-two inspectors’ districts, and 
they include all the wharves, piers, and bulkheads on the North and 
East rivers, New York ; also, of Brooklyn, including Williamsburg, Green 
Point, and Long Island City; also, of Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehaw- 
ken, and Bayonne, in the State of New Jersey ; also, of Staten Island, 
all being within the collection “district of the city of New York.” 
[Revised Statutes, section 2535, second,'] 

The inspectors assigned to duty as district officers (H) [Customs Reg¬ 
ulations, 1883, (Cat. No. 952,) articles 250-292, inclusive] supervised 
the discharge of cargo from 324 steamships and 2,961 sailing-vessels; 
and they also supervised and certified to the shipment of merchandise 
described in 54,389 entries delivered to them for that purpose by de¬ 
benture officers, viz: Exports for drawback, 21,009; immediate trans¬ 
portation and transportation in bond to other ports, 18,322; exports 
from bonded warehouse, 15,058. The number of railroad-cars (of bonded 
carriers) with dutiable merchandise laden and unladen under their 
supervision was 12,866. 

Four inspectors (I) were assigned to other departments by direc¬ 
tion of the collector, three (J) were detailed to search sailing-vessels 
and Havana steamships for concealed merchandise not on the manifest, 
and four (K) were employed in various temporary special duties for 
the prevention and detection of frauds upon the revenue, and for other 
special duties in “aid of the revenue.” 

The inspectors reported “sick and disabled” (L) produced satisfac¬ 
tory evidence of their disabilities, and those “absent” (M) were granted 
leave under the regulations in force prior to Department order dated 
March 18, 1885. 

Night-inspectors. —The whole number authorized is 121, (Department 
letter dated February 19, 1885,) and the number of vacancies (report to 
collector dated May 11, 1885) is six. 

The duties of night-inspectors and their manner of assignment to 
steamships and other vessels and to wharves, are set forth in Customs 
Regulations of 1884, article 1434, and Regulations of 1883, (Cat. No. 
952,) articles 409 and 410. 

Coast-inspectors. —The number is four, avIio reside on the south coast 
of Long Island. Their duties are stated in Customs Regulations, 1884, 
article 1427. The compensation of each is $3 per diem when employed, 
but the aggregate compensation of the four is not to exceed $730 per 
annum. (Department letter to collector, dated August 20, 1879.) 

Female inspectors, (B. S., sec. 3064.)—The number employed is nine; 
who are required to be in attendance at the barge office and at the 
wharves in New Jersey when vessels arrive with cabin and steerage 
passengers, for the purpose of detecting frauds and of searching the 
persons of their own sex when necessary. They also attend at Castle 
Garden to perform the same duties when the steerage passengers are 
brought thereto from vessels. The number of female inspectors detailed 
for each vessel arriving is directed by the deputy surveyor according to 
the necessities of the service. 

The measurer. —The duties of this office are set forth in Customs 
Regulations, 1884, articles 1484 and 1485, and all marble imported is 
measured and returned by him. 

I have stated the number employed, and, in a general way, the ser¬ 
vices required of, and performed by, the officers of the customs in the 
surveyor’s department. All the officers, except those temporarily sick 


212 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


or disabled or absent with leave, have been actually employed; and the 
method of rotation and assignment of officers is such that their services 
have been and are utilized to the best advantage of the public business 
and in the manner that experience and observation has from time to 
time suggested. 

It is my opinion that the number of officers employed has not been, 
and is not now, greater than was and is necessary for the due and proper 
performance of the public service, as required by the laws and regula¬ 
tions. 

I am not yet prepared to make any suggestions or recommendations 
as to whether the methods of doing business can be simplified or whereby 
the efficiency of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed. 
I will give the subject my consideration, and will report thereon as soon 
as practicable. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES L. BENEDICT, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Wm. H. Robertson, Collector. 


No. 97. 

Custom-House, New York, 

Surveyor’s Office , April 8, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to the Department letter dated April 1, 1885, request¬ 
ing me to report in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the force 
employed in this office can be reduced, &c., I have to state: 

When I entered upon my duties as surveyor, on the 15th day of 
March, 1883, the force employed in this office was as follows: 


One deputy surveyor.... $2, 500 

Twenty clerks, (aggregate). 34, 300 

Eight messengers, (aggregate).!. 5, 680 

Ten inspectors for measurement of vessels, (aggregate). 14, 600 

Total... 57,080 

Since the date named the force has been reduced by death, resigna- 
nations, and transfers, and now stands as follows: 

One deputy surveyor... $2, 500 

Seventeen clerks, (aggregate). 29,100 

Eight messengers, (aggregate).. 5, 780 

Seven inspectors for measurement of vessels, ^aggregate).. 10, 220 

Total. 48,100 


In my opinion, the force cannot be further reduced without detriment 
to the public service. 

The collector, in a letter of this date, has called upon me to make 
report in relation to the customs force under my superintendence and 
direction, (Revised Statutes, section 2627 ;) and so much of the Depart¬ 
ment letter aforesaid as refers to the methods of business, and calls for 
suggestions and recommendations relative thereto, will be made in my 
report to the collector. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES L. BENEDICT, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Surveyor. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 













REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 213 


No. 98. 

Port of New York, 

Naval Office, April 14, 1885. 

Sir : In conformity with the directions contained in your circular of 
the 1st instant, I have the honor to submit the following report. 

As a clear comprehension of the legal status of this office is essential 
to a proper estimate of the force required in its administration, I will 
first briefly describe its functions. 

The receipts from customs at this port during the last fiscal year were 
over $138,000,000, and during the preceding fiscal year over $151,000,000. 
This vast sum was paid directly into the hands of the collector of the 
port, and disbursed solely by him. In addition to his liability for moneys 
actually received, the collector is required to secure the payment of 
all imposts due the Government, and to enforce at this port all laws 
and regulations relating to customs. The thoroughness of this work 
largely depends upon his efficiency, intelligence, and fidelity. It is 
not possible to provide in advance any standard by which his account¬ 
ability may be measured, because the latter depends upon conditions of 
business which cannot be predicted. For the security of the Govern¬ 
ment it therefore becomes imperatively necessary to maintain at this 
point a co-ordinate officer, who shall act concurrently with the collector 
and report all transactions from complete and independent records. In 
order that this officer may secure vigilant cognizance of the collector’s 
proceedings, the statutes have wisely provided that all papers involving 
the levying of imposts or the delivery of imported merchandise shall 
be valid only when countersigned by the naval officer, and that there 
shall be in the naval-office divisions corresponding to those in the col¬ 
lector’s office which have. supervision over such matters. In these 
divisions, although the initial point of each transaction is the same in 
both offices, distinct methods of treatment are pursued, and accuracy 
is indicated by agreement in final results. To this end it becomes essen¬ 
tial that the work of the collector should be reviewed, revised if neces¬ 
sary, recorded, and certified in the naval office. Thus duplicate manifests 
of cargo and duplicate inspectors’ returns are filed in the naval office,- 
and furnish the means of tracing the disposition of every article arriv¬ 
ing from a foreign port. Duplicate vouchers are filed at every step in 
the entry and withdrawal of merchandise, and enable the naval officer 
to exact and record the correct imposts. The assistant treasurer fur¬ 
nishes daily certificates of deposits credited to the collector, and all 
vouchers for his disbursements must, before payment, be audited by the 
naval officer. It is thus made practicable, at any time, for the naval offi¬ 
cer to declare the collector’s liability without recourse to the collector’s 
accounts. 

The utility of a coincident revision of official papers is demonstrated 
by the enormous aggregate of corrections thereby effected, some account 
of which I will include in this report. It is an axiom among customs 
officers that any error in the initiatory steps of a transaction requires 
the services of ten men to adjust it. It is certain that no subsequent 
examination and audit could approach in probability of accuracy, econ¬ 
omy, and sufficiency of record the concurrent action of this office as 
provided by statute. 

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, the naval office employed 
an average of ninety-one clerks and messengers, at an expense for sal- 


214 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


aries (including the naval officer’s compensation) ol $160,138.29, being 
less than twelve-hundredths of 1 per cent, of the receipts at this port. 

I have carefully investigated the conditions, with a view to the cur¬ 
tailment of expenses, but I am forced to the conclusion that no reduc¬ 
tion is possible, except at the risk of detriment to the Government. In 
fact, the present force is inadequate to the demands upon it, and it is 
only by working over-hours and by arranging the clerks in a mobile 
organization, transferring them from point to point as the exigencies ot 
current business require, that this office is enabled to avoid accumula¬ 
tions. In justice to my subordinates, I must be allowed to testify to 
their unusual capacity, zeal, and intelligence. . I can produce abundant 
testimony from persons having business with them, from special agents 
of the Treasury, and other officers of the Government, as to the prompt¬ 
ness and accuracy which characterize their work, and the methodical 
and accessible conditions of the naval-office records. 

The seven clerks comprising the entry division of this office practi¬ 
cally perform the same amount of labor as is done by the fifteen entry 
clerks in the collector’s office. That their revision of entries is not 
superfluous is illustrated by the fact that during the last fiscal year 
they returned 18,072 errors for correction, of which 10,696 were money 
errors, involving an aggregate of $3,589,237.51. 

The liquidating division exhibits a record, during the same period, 
of 16,579 corrections enforced, with a duty value of $1,003,739.39. 
Proportionate results might be quoted in the remaining divisions of 
this office. 

It should be noted, in this connection, that in 1881 an additional 
bureau, requiring six clerks, was established in this office, at the special 
request of the Commissioner of Customs, for the purpose of securing a 
verified monthly abstract of the warehouse-bond account, an account 
which formerly carried along a balance unaccounted for of $1,668,000, 
but which, under the system thus inaugurated, now produces the exact 
balance on every open bond at the beginning of each month. 

Consideration should also be given to the enormous and progressive 
increase of work in certain branches of the service. The number and 
amount of drawback certificates has doubled since 1881, and, under 
constant changes of legislation, bids fair to expand in the same ratio. 

The transportation of goods through this port without payment of 
duty entails a vast amount of labor upon the customs officers without 
adding one dollar to the receipts of money, and is increasing year by 
year. 

Desirous as I am of administering this office with the utmost practi¬ 
cable economy, I am obliged to report that I am unable to suggest any 
reduction of its present cost which would not interfere with its efficiency 
and value. 

Very respectfully, 

CHARLES K. GRAHAM, 

Naval Officer. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


215 


No. 99. 

Office of U. S. General Appraiser, 

Corner of Washington and Hubert Streets, 

New York , April 16, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
letter dated April 1, 1885, requesting me to report— 

1st. To what extent the force employed under my direction can be 
reduced without detriment to the public service. 

2d. Whether the method of doing business can be simplified; and, 
in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may 
occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service maybe improved and 
the expenses curtailed. 

I have given the subject considerable thought during my two years 7 
incumbency of this office, and especially since the receipt of your re¬ 
quest. 

As to the first inquiry, I answer in the affirmative, but beg permis¬ 
sion to make the reasons and details for any . proposed change the sub¬ 
ject of a communication to be soon made, and the making of which I 
have for some time contemplated. The exigencies of the service in my 
office are such that the eight clerks (one of whom is clerk to the board 
of general appraisers and one a professional stenographer) and the one 
opener and packer and the one messenger attached to it are at times fully 
and necessarily employed, but I believe, with a rearrangement and redis¬ 
tribution of duties, I can lessen the number and also the expense, and 
will, as before suggested, hereafter place before the Department my 
plans to that end. 

As to the second inquiry, whether methods of doing business can be 
simplified, it opens a field for examination which involves statute law 
and Departmental regulations having all the force of statute law, and 
also the wide range of discretion which is necessarily and inevitably 
given to the incumbent of the office of general appraiser, especially need¬ 
ful to be exercised at the port of New York. While I shall cheerfully 
respond to any inquiry of the Department, for the present I presume 
it is not desired that I shall attempt to give more than a few suggestions, 
and those pertaining to the more prominent and most frequent subjects 
for improvement. 

The revision of the tariff law by the act of March 3, 1883, which was 
just at the time I became general appraiser at this port, introduced upon 
reappraisements (as well as upon appraisements) two new elements for 
investigation—due, cost of production of merchandise, the other the ques¬ 
tion of charges for transportation, packing, &c., as being elements of 
dutiable or non-dutiable value. As to the first of them, there is up to 
this time no Departmental regulation as to its ascertainment. It seems 
to be by the language of the statute subordinate or secondary to the in¬ 
quiry, What is market value? and is to be entered upon only in case 
the latter cannot be ascertained. 

The second—that is, charges for packages, wrappers, coverings, trans¬ 
portation, &c.—has been the subject of frequent decisions of the Depart¬ 
ment, and which greatly aid the appraisers in the discharge of their 
duties. Nevertheless, in the variety of transactions, in the ingenuity 
of shippers, receivers, and importers of merchandise, and the shifts and 
changes constantly going forward to lessen the sum to be paid for du¬ 
ties, scarcely a day passes that some new and complicated case under 


216 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


this head does not arise before me, (and many more must arise betore 
the local appraiser.) I do not think it is possible to do exact justice 
under existing regulations. 

The chief subjects for inquiry upon appeals to me for the reappraise¬ 
ment are— 

1. What is the true and actual market value of the merchandise at 
the place and date of exportation? If that cannot be ascertained, then— 

2. What was the cost of production of such merchandise? 

3. What charges, if any, stated on the invoice which it is sought to 
have deducted as non-dutiable ought under the laws and the regula¬ 
tions to be adjudged dutiable? 

As a very large majority of the cases coming up for reappraisement 
are of silk and silk and cotton fabrics, in writing of methods and mak¬ 
ing recommendations I shall have in mind more particularly expe¬ 
riences and observations with that class of goods, although all goods du¬ 
tiable ad valorem will come within the scope of my remarks. 

I can almost say there are no importers of silk and silk and cotton 
fabrics. A few honestly buy in the foreign market, but only a few, 
and they not through the whole range of such fabrics, for the reason 
that they do not buy them except through agents in this country. 
There are consignors and receivers of them, but where the property in 
them is lodged is a problem that may be found out, but its difficulties 
are very great and are new at every turn. 

The competition between receivers of goods here for the agencies of 
various foreign manufacturers is very great in many instances. One of 
the most powerful means to determine who shall be the successful com¬ 
petitor is “the cheapness with which the goods can be got through the 
custom-house.” These rivalries have a tendency very rarely to benefit 
the effort to administer the law correctly, but in the main and in the 
end it is the reverse. The usual condition is a mutual regard for each 
other’s interest, to the detriment of the Government’s. The foreign 
manufacturer will invoice his goods as low as he can, his consignee will 
quite likely (almost always does) enter them at an advance and to a fig¬ 
ure which he hopes the local appraiser will not exceed by so much as 
10 per cent., (the penalty line.) If he does, there is certain to be an 
appeal.. 

It is next to impossible to get those as experts who are not in a situa¬ 
tion similar to the appellant. The result is evidence, under oath, re¬ 
ducing the advanced values at least below the penalty line, and as much 
lower as it is possible for any one to give rein to the purpose of going 
lower. These experts are selected, and necessarily selected, from among 
the receivers of the goods, because there are so few or no buyers of them, 
and in many cases there is actually no conclusive testimony as to market 
value. If driven to seek for cost of production, the situation is usually 
worse. There is no element in the production of these silk goods which 
cannot be with reasonable certainty ascertained here, except that of 
labor, machine and hand. But there is no method provided for analyz¬ 
ing fabrics, save only to invoke the aid of domestic manufacturers. 
This has been done; but as there is no law to compel them to do the 
work for nothing, and no means to pay them for it except so far as it 
may serve their own interests, such successful efforts as have been made 
in that direction are few in number, and are limited to the lines of goods 
which they make, and which are vastly fewer in number than the whole 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 217 


range of importations. I am having in mind somewhat extreme cases 
of the worser sort; but the clear ones are rare, the doubtful too numer¬ 
ous. and the dark abundant. 

There have been recently brought to my attenti on, as to alleged cost of 
production, reports made by Government experts in the foreign places 
of manufacture of these goods—Lyons, Zurich, and Crefeld, more especi¬ 
ally—which purport to give details of their elements and the cost of 
putting them together. In the absence of any instructions by the De¬ 
partment as to what weight I should give to such reports, I weigh them 
as I weigh all other evidence and information touching these matters, 
to wit, by those salutary rules learned by long experience, observation, 
and reading in a profession which makes evidence of facts one of its 
chief studies. Guided by such rules, I have not found those reports 
altogether satisfactory, though they have been in some instances of con¬ 
siderable value. Their value might doubtless be considerably increased 
by an enlargement of the scope of inquiry on the part of the Govern¬ 
ment agents making them, and more minute instructions as to their 
duties and powers, and a clear direction as to the value to be placed on 
their returns. Under the present system of reappraisements, always 
when demanded, for the sole purpose of lessening dutiable value, this 
anomaly is presented : The appeal is from an advance or a disallowance, 
making an advance on dutiable value. The advance or disallowance 
has been made by a sworn and presumably competent public officer. 
Nevertheless, the Government calls experts to sustain its own permanent 
and previously selected officers, who, from their very position, have the 
best opportunities for observation, comparison, and correct determina¬ 
tion. I have already given hints enough of the too frequent results. 

I will not presume to declare that any recommendation I at this time 
make can be made practical except by action of Congress. Neverthe¬ 
less, I recommend that the burden of showing market value upon reap¬ 
praisement be shifted from the Government to the importer. That the 
manufacturer, shipper, consignor, or other person sending forward to 
this country merchandise dutiable ad valorem shall in his consular in¬ 
voice state upon oath the price at which he has made an actual sale or 
sales of such as the invoice designates, (or the fact that he has made no 
sale of them at any time,) and the price at which he, without restriction, 
offers them for sale and is willing to sell them. That the importer or 
receiver or consignee of the goods shall on entry of them make oath as to 
his true relation to them as agent, owner, consignee, or what other name. 
That a general rule should be made for Government officers, on the 
disclosure of falsehoods in any such statements, to direct seizure of the 
goods and such prosecutions as the law authorizes. That the importer, 
consignee, agent, or other person who enters the goods shall be per¬ 
sonally responsible for the correctness of the statements on the face of 
the invoice, except so far as they are modified by his own statements at 
the time of entry. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

A. J. PERRY, 

General Appraiser. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 


218 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 100. 

Custom-House, Norfolk, Va., 

Collector's Office , April 14, 1885. 

Sir : 1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communi¬ 
cation of the 1st instant, asking for a report of the extent to which the 
force employed may be reduced without detriment to the public service. 

I beg to state that during the summer months very little business 
is done at this port, and the service of some of the employes—say two, 
the assistant marine clerk and one inspector—may be dispensed with; 
but I question the propriety of dispensing with the services ot trained 
employes when it may be necessary to re-employ them at the beginning 
of the season, or, more probably, supply their places with new and in¬ 
experienced men. Then, too, there has just been started here an enter¬ 
prise by the Norfolk and Western Railroad Company, whose agents 
are now making arrangements for an immense coaling-station at Lam¬ 
bert’s Point, about three miles below the city. The probabilities are 
that this point will be visited by numbers of foreign vessels, and the 
protection of the revenue would require the stationing of an officer 
there almost continuously. In view of this fact, I would recommend 
that, for the present, no decrease be made in the force. 

I shall have pleasure in seconding the efforts of the Department at 
a curtailment of expense, and will recommend a reduction whenever, 
in my opinion, it can be properly done, as I did in the case of the Suf¬ 
folk inspector, on the 1st instant. 

Very respectfully, 

G. E. BOWDEN, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector. 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I>. C. 


No. 101. 

Custom-House, Omaha, Nebr., 

Surveyor's Office , April 18, 1885. 

Sir : Referring further to your circular letter dated April 1, 1885, 
relative to a reduction, if possible, of the force employed under me, 
to which I responded by letter under date of the 10th instant, I desire 
now to state that since then I have been able to give to the subject-mat¬ 
ter of your communication more careful study and consideration, and, 
as a result, have reached the conclusion that if the business of this 
port does not increase over what it is at the present time, I shall be able 
to dispense with the services of my regular deputy, provided I can 
swear in the watchman of this building as a deputy, with whose as¬ 
sistance I shall, as I believe, be able to perform the work. He (the 
watchman) is on duty from 8 A. M. until 11 p. M. —that is to say, he is 
in the building during that time ; but it is from 5 P. M. until 11 p. m., 
when he closes and locks the building for the night, that his services 
are more especially required, as it is then that the roughs and hood¬ 
lums of the city attempt to congregate in the lobbies and corridors of 
the building and cause disturbance. Hence, being available during 
the day, the watchman, if qualified to act as deputy surveyor, could 
render service as such, and, if allowable under the rules of the Depart- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


219 


ment, I beg to recommend that such action be ordered by you, and, for 
such additional services, I also recommend that he (the,watchman, H. 
Kirby) receive an increase of $200 per year to his present salary, which 
will make his entire compensation $800 per annum, which, in my judg¬ 
ment, would be about a just and right remuneration for his combined 
services, and, further, that, from the date of such action, the services 
of J. N. Phillips, my present deputy, be dispensed with, thereby effect¬ 
ing a saving to the Department of $895 per annum. I desire also to 
state that the services of the engineer of this building are actually re¬ 
quired for only about seven months of the year, say from September 15 
to April 15 5 but inasmuch as it is sometimes a difficult matter to obtain 
the services of an efficient and competent engineer for only a portion of 
the year , it perhaps would not be a wise policy to attempt a curtail¬ 
ment in this particular, which, however, if done, would effect a further 
saving of some $400 per annum. I simply bring this latter matter to 
your attention by way of suggestion, but regard it as scarcely proper 
for me to make any recommendation in the premises at present, as pos¬ 
sibly the Department contemplates making some such change in the 
payment of engineers in buildings of this class throughout the country, 

. which, as I believe, could be made practicable, either by adopting a 
system as indicated, or by reducing the annual salary to a sum that 
will more nearly correspond with the length of time that they (the 
engineers) are actually occupied. 

Very respectfully, 

JOHK CAMPBELL, 

Surveyor of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , IK C. 


Ko. 102. 

Custom-House, Ogdensburg, K. Y., 

Collectors Office , May 6 , 18S5. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular 
letter of the 1st ultimo, requesting me to report the practicability of 
reducing the force in this collection district, without detriment to the 
public service; if the methods of doing business can be simplified, and 
such other suggestions and recommendations as may suggest themselves 
to me. 

In this collection district we have the following, or outside, sub-ports, 
viz : Chippewa Bay, Morristown, Lisbon, Waddington, Louisville, and 
Massena, covering 'a distance of between sixty and seventy miles on 
the St. Lawrence river. 

At Morristown there is one ferry, from Brockville, Ontario, running the 
entire year, and two boats nine months in the year. The business at 
that port is large, keeping the three officers stationed there very busy. 
I am frequently obliged to send an officer from here to assist them. 

At Waddington a ferry-boat from Morrisburg, Ontario, runs the entire 
year. The business there keeps the deputy busy all the time, and a 
large portion of the time lie is assisted by an inspector. 

At Louisville there is a ferry from Aultsville, Ontario, during the sea¬ 
son of navigation, and a constant crossing and recrossing of small boats, 
which require more or less looking after all the time. 



220 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


At Massena there is a steam-ferry part of the year from Cornwall, 
Ontario; also a horse-ferry, that lands on Barnhart’s Island, and then 
readies the main-land by another ferry from the island. These two 
latter ferries are wide apart, and the geography of the country is such 
in the town of Massena that two officers are required there during the 
season of navigation. 

At Lisbon a scow is used as a ferry from Edwardsburg, Ontario. There 
is considerable property imported at this point. A deputy collector 
has been stationed there for years. The Department abolished the 
office at one time, but there was such a demand for its re-establishment 
that the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, after giving the mat¬ 
ter considerable attention, stationed an officer there again. It is cer¬ 
tainly needed for the convenience of the people. 

At Chippewa Bay there is no regular ferry; but in this vicinity, dur¬ 
ing the season of navigation, steamboats are constantly arriving and 
departing, and the number of row-boats going and coming is very great. 

At this port, Ogdensburg, we have two officers stationed at the Ontario 
and Lake Shore Bailroad all the time, and during the season of navigation 
three. Two officers at the ferry-landing, one day and one night officer, 
and this office is always open. One officer at the Borne, Watertown 
and Ogdensburg and Utica and Black Biver depots, and five officers at 
the main office—in fact, only four; for while one inspector keeps cer¬ 
tain records and papers, he also acts as a supernumerary, assisting at 
Morristown at the Ontario and Lake Shore depot on night duty, and 
taking the place of officers sick or unavoidably detained at home, &c. 

Soon after navigation closes the ice forms a substantial bridge at 
numerous points in the district, and forms perfectly safe crossing for foot- 
passengers and loaded teams, which require constant watching and 
looking after. 

I find that it is the same in public as in private business—at times 
somewhat dull, and employes not very busy—but it soon revives, and then 
you must have your full force of trained men to meet its demands. 

I cannot see how the force in this district, just on the opening of 
navigation, can be reduced without impairing the service. Possibly 
after the close of navigation a slight temporary reduction at certain 
points could be made. 

In reference to simplifying the methods of doing business, I have no 
suggestions to make. While we render a large number of reports to the 
different bureaus, I suppose they are all required, to conform with the 
system of checks and balances adopted by the Department. 

Serious illness on my part has delayed my replying sooner. 

I am, sir, yours, very respectfully, 

W. H. DANIELS, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasu ry , Wash ington , I). C. 


No. 103. 

Custom-House, Oswego, N. Y., 

Collector's Office , April 11, 1885. 

Sir : Pursuant to request contained in printed letter of April 1,1885, 
I have the honor to report that, so far as said letter relates to the force 
employed under my direction and the suggested reduction of the same 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 221 


without detriment to the public service, the number of employes at this 
date is very low, the season of navigation not having arrived yet, when 
a much larger force is usually employed to meet the increased demands 
of the service. 1 therefore assume that the information solicited more 
particularly has reference to a more economic collection of import 
duties generally within my district. 

The practicability of reducing the force within this district, in my 
judgment, depends very largely upon the reply to your second inquiry, 
whether the method of doing business in this district can be simplified 
without detriment to the public service. 

The questions have upon many occasions engaged the attention of the 
Department so far as relate to this and a few of the largest and most 
important lumber and grain importing districts along the north and 
northwestern frontier, where, as a rule, the cargo consists of a single 
commodity, the importing vessel comparatively small, the distance 
travelled short—often the span of a river, at most a lake—trips are 
often made and repeated under the influence of rapidly shifting winds, 
and the year’s business is crowded into a short season of navigation, (see 
letter of Secretary McCulloch, April 10, 1866,) and have led eventually 
to the promulgation of special rules and regulations for the convenience 
and simplification of business at the larger lake ports for reasons assigned 
under the head of “ measurements of grain and lumber imported at ports 
on Canadian frontier.” (See printed circular to collectors, July 23, 
1878; also Synopsis of Decisions, Treasury Department, 1873, No. 1636.) 

That the port of Oswego was the port demanding this simplification 
of existing rules and regulations in 1873, and has so continued more than 
all others, there can be little doubt when we compare the receipts of both 
grain and lumber annually received at Oswego with that of other lake 
ports and districts upon the Canada frontier. The receipts of imported 
grain during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, within the districts 
of Oswegatchie, Cape Vincent, Genesee, Niagara, Buffalo Creek, Dun¬ 
kirk, Erie, Cuyahoga, Miami, Sandusky, Michigan, Huron, Detroit, 
Superior, Chicago, and Milwaukee combined was 4,973,541 bushels, and 
an aggregate of lumber at the same ports amounting to 105,418,000 feet. 

The amount received within the district of Oswego for the same year 
was, grain, 3,916,518 bushels; lumber, 184,413,000 feet; or, in other 
words, the importations into this district amounted to 44 per cent, of 
all grain and 63.6 per cent, of all lumber received within these districts 
for the fiscal year aforesaid, as shown by above exhibit, including the 
district of Oswegatchie, east of Lake Ontario. 

The aggregate receipts for the district of Oswego, season of 1884, 
are: Grain, 4,455,612 bushels ; sawn lumber, 192,306,843 feet; shingles, 
16,210,975 ; lath, 19,547,100 pieces; pickets, 247,500 ; heading, 725,992 
pieces; besides miscellaneous commodities of wood, such as ce<W posts, 
door-panellings, mouldings, strips, deal-ends, &c. 

To apply the measurer’s rule to each board and secure actual meas¬ 
urement of this vast quantity of lumber would seem quite impossible, 
would tend to seriously embarrass trade, and could, as stated in said 
circular letter, prove of “no corresponding advantage to the revenue.” 

The district of Oswego is so situated that importations of this class 
have hitherto been limited to the season of navigation. Unlike those 
districts lying contiguous to the River St. Lawrence, where the frontier 
is crossed by rail and team during the entire year, my force of inspectors 
are appointed, as a rule, only for the season of navigation, about eight 


222 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


months, with per diem pay no greater than that usually paid to in¬ 
spectors holding through the year at Suspension Bridge. Plattsburg, 
Ogdensburg, Buffalo, Burlington, Chicago, &c., the number correspond¬ 
ing to importations during those busy months being less, as we under¬ 
stand, than of other revenue districts, in so much that the district of 
Oswego has received the compliment of having collected the revenues 
of the Government at less per cent, than that of any other district within 
the United States. There has, indeed, been times when this district has 
been subject of criticism, by reason of the limited number of men em¬ 
ployed. Under my immediate predecessor in office, the late Collector 
Daniel G. Fort, as well as myself, this reduction, with a view to econo¬ 
mize collections, was carried to that extent, which caused Special Agent 
J. A. Camp and Special Inspector Norris Winston of the Treasury De¬ 
partment to visit this port in the summer of 1882 and to note the man¬ 
ner of doing business within our lumber district, .since considerably 
extended, and to report, as the result of their joint observation, that the 
force of inspectors was quite too limited to meet the demands of the 
public service, even under such simplification or modified requirements; 
whereupon a larger number of inspectors were appointed, (see collec¬ 
tor’s letter, September 12, 1882;) and this force raised from eleven to 
fourteen September 15, same year, and to sixteen for the entire district 
in 1884. In case of emergency, temporary inspectors have also been 
employed. (See collector’s letter, September 27, 1884, and official report 
Special Agent W. F. Howell, about that date.) 

In a service so extended upon either side of the Oswego river, more 
recently along the shore bordering the new harbor, the lumber district 
at Oswego being divided by intervening hills, a broad harbor, with 
islands used also for lumber purposes, where many docks, slips, and 
piers are owned and controlled by different firms and individuals en¬ 
gaged in the same business, it may be a question of doubtful propriety 
for the Government to materially lessen the usual force of lumber in¬ 
spectors here employed. 

My predecessor in office seemed to have trusted in a measure to the 
integrity of the importers regarding qualities and values. Without 
desiring to reflect upon the integrity of any. I have deemed it a duty to 
know with greater certainty find from official sources regarding the 
same facts. 

I am fully in accord with the Department in its laudable desire to 
retrench and curtail expenses of collection wherever such can be done 
without detriment to the public service. I shall deem it a duty, as well 
as a pleasure, to aid such retrenchment so far as the same can be prac¬ 
ticably applied to this district; the success of the effort, however, in 
my judgment, largely depends upon the degree of care and attention to 
be giv|n the several cargoes of lumber and grain arriving at this port 
during the period of unlading. As to grain, all is weighed by the store¬ 
keeper at expense of warehouse. An inspector of customs is deemed 
indispensable.on such occasions. Each favorable wind is likely to bring, 
and often does bring, a large fleet of importing vessels into our harbor, 
each demanding to be unladen preparatory to return trip. Should it 
be deemed essential that each cargo on such occasions receive the indi¬ 
vidual attention of an inspector during such unlading, then the force 
of inspectors is seemingly none too large for this particular work. 
Under the regulations, as modified to meet the requirements of this 
port July 23, 1873, an experienced officer soon becomes familiar with 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 223 


the carrying capacity of a vessel from observation and official experi¬ 
ence, and the privilege here conceded to measure lumber in bulk when 
actually landed, or to determine the quantity by estimating the same 
upon arrival, leaving much to the sound discretion of customs officers, 
in such cases the same officer (if experienced) can estimate and with 
reasonable accuracy determine the quantities of several cargoes within 
a few hours and make report of the same, thereby preventing the per¬ 
petration of fraud upon the revenue, and at the same time not unneces¬ 
sarily embarrass trade. 

Should liberty also be granted to the attending inspector to remain 
within reasonable proximity, make frequent visits to the importing ves¬ 
sel while being thus unladen, supervision might be extended over two 
or three vessels at the same time, thereby supplying a means whereby 
to lessen the force of inspectors somewhat within this district without 
material detriment to the service, barring increased opportunity on the 
part of vessel-owners to avoid observation should they desire conceal¬ 
ment within their respective cargoes. 

Unlike some of the frontier districts, we have not shared the benefits 
of a localized special officer. Till recently, Special Inspector S. L. Nor¬ 
ton has been at this port, with expectations to remain. With such as¬ 
sistance, a corresponding reduction of the ordinary inspectors’ force 
might follow, without injury to the service. 

In 1884, the Northern Central Railroad was bonded, with expectation 
that importations at Fair Haven would be greatly augmented. This has 
not been realized. Deputy Collector and Inspector Geo. P. Knapp can 
discharge the duties at that port the greater portion of the season, save 
in emergency, and even then, with telegraph and railroad communi¬ 
cations, assistance can be rendered from Oswego, if necessary. 

I learn that no passenger-steamer is to connect with the New York, 
Ontario and Western Railroad at this port during the season of 1885. 
Should this prove true, one of the inspectors (there were two in 1884) 
performing night duty, might also be dispensed with, assistance, in 
cases of emergency being rendered from the dock office, kept open 
nights, at this port. 

The night or dock office mentioned is of service only during the 
season of navigation. One of the annual appointees has for many 
years been in charge, with salary fixed at $1,000. Without material 
injury to the service, this -could properly be changed to a season ap¬ 
pointment, with compensation fixed at $8 per diem, effecting an annual 
saving of about $250. 

The navigation desk in this building has for many years been sup¬ 
plied by two season appointments. Ex-Deputy Gardner informs me 
that one deputy cannot possibly discharge the duties at that desk. 
Ex-Deputy Thomas Moore thinks otherwise, providing the appointee 
shall be familiar with the duties pertaining to that desk, with privilege 
to work after office-hours when pressed. Mr. Moore has had eleven 
years’ experience. I believe him competent. 

With facilities existing at this port for shipping merchandise in bond 
over the different railroads of late centring at this point, and via 
Oswego and Erie canals, it has become of frequent occurrence for in¬ 
spectors to be summoned to different and distant points in case accident 
to bonded car or boat, to superintend transfer of merchandise, &c. A 
system has also grown up of importing small pine pieces from Canada, 
known as match-stock, generally consigned to Diamond Match Com- 


224 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


pany, at Frankfort. These blocks are too small and numerous to be 
measured by rule, or to render the unlading of the canal-boat at this 
port practicable, which seems to necessitate the attendance of an in¬ 
spector at Frankfort whenever the emergency arises. I would suggest 
that the privileges granted in circular letter to collectors, July 23, 1873, 
regarding measurements, be extended to this commodity, unlading to 
take place at point of destination, under supervision of inspector or 
special officer at expense of importer, including per diem pay of such 
officer, and that the same rule as to expenses be applied in case of 
accident to merchandise in transit under bond. 

I am, very respectfully, 

JOHN J. LAMOREE, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


No. 104. 


Custom House, Pensacola, Fla., 

Collector's Office , April 15, 1885. 


Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter 
dated April 1, 1885, and respectfully report that the office force (two 
deputies and clerk) coidd not be reduced without detriment to the pub¬ 
lic service. The regular force of inspectors is seven. The term of 
service of one of them, Mr. Scarritt Moreno, will terminate on April 30, 
1885. (Department letter dated February 4, 1885.) I can also make a 
reduction of one more inspector after the 31st of May, 1885, which will 
leave five inspectors—one to be sent to the quarantine station, with boat 
and two boatmen; one to be left at Barrancas station, with one boatman, 
to guard against landing smuggled good and take care of the public 
property; three inspectors and three boatmen, to attend to boarding 
duty and discharging cargoes, at Pensacola. There are two night-watch¬ 
men, one at the barge office and one at the custom-rooms; also, a mes¬ 
senger and janitor. The services of all these are absolutely necessary. 
The foregoing constitute the entire force of employes in this district. 
The full force of seven inspectors will be required for duty during the 
winter season. 

Should the work be commenced as contemplated on the railroad from 
Chipley to St. Andrews Bay, it would be necessary to re-establish that 
station by the appointment of an inspector and boatman for that point. 

1 know of no way that the methods of doing business could be simpli¬ 
fied, and the efficiency of the service improved, or the expenses further 
curtailed. , 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. M. TAEBLE, 

Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , 1). C. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 225 


No. 105. 


Custom-House, Perth Amboy, N. J., 

Collector’s Office , April 13, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department letter of April 1, 1885, I have the honor 
to report that the material imported in this port is chiefly iron ore and 
manufactures ot iron and steel, and the present regulations of the Depart¬ 
ment are so plain that I have no alterations to suggest. In reply to 
your question as to whether the present force of this office can be re¬ 
duced without impairing the efficiency of the service, I have the honor 
to report that the term of service of Win. T. Hopper (the inspector who 
has had charge of the inspection of that portion of the district lying be¬ 
tween Sandy Hook and Manasquan inlet) expired by limitation on 
April 1, 1885. His duties were largely preventive; and while I have 
found Mr. Hopper a capable and efficient officer, if the Department 
thinks that the Llife-Saving Service forms a sufficient coast guard to pre¬ 
vent fraud on the revenue during the summer season, his further ser¬ 
vice might be dispensed with by extending the duties of Win. T. Brown, 
the inspector now on duty from Manasquan to Barnegat, to include that 
portion of the coast from Manasquan to Sandy Hook. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

M. A. EDGAE, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 106. 

Custom-House, Philadelphia, Pa., 

Collector’s Office , May 13, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to report that I have examined the subject of 
the reorganization and reduction of the force now employed in the cus¬ 
toms service at the port of Philadelphia, referred to me by the circular 
letter of the Department of April 1, 1885, and find that considerable 
reduction has already taken place in view of the decrease in receipts 
during the first part of the current fiscal year. 

This reduction amounts to over eighteen thousand dollars per annum, 
which is about proportional to the decrease of receipts up to March 1, 
1885. In addition, five jflaces, aggregating fifty-five hundred dollars, 
are now in abeyance, on account of the absence from sickness and other 
causes of the incumbents, without pay. Three of these will undoubtedly 
become vacant, and a recommendation for their abolishment has been 
withheld pending only the determination of the question of receipts. 

The decrease of receipts ceased with February, but since that time 
the customs have increased over any corresponding previous period. 

The reduction began and kept pace with the decrease in receipts, but 
with a positive return to and above the old figures. I would not deem 
it advisable to make any further reductions other than as vacancies 
occur may be found practicable in the current course of business, and 
not inconvenient to the service or the public. 

15 A 



226 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


This reduction is principally in the outside force of the service, in 
which changes and vacancies happen more frequently than in the inside 
clerkships. Owing to the extent of territory covered by the customs 
district of Philadelphia, the proportion of outside force to the gross 
amount of customs must necessarily be somewhat larger than in more 
compact districts. For this reason also, re-enforced by the views of the 
surveyor of the port, the reductions made in this part of the force have 
brought it to the verge of efficiency, and until a reasonable experience 
has demonstrated that the reduced force can adequately guard the in¬ 
terests of the Government and answer the just claims of importers for 
prompt inspection and delivery, it does not seem judicious to force a 
reduction. 

The resignation of Deputy Collector Win. D. Smith, to take effect 
not later than June 1, 1885, which has come to my hand since the re¬ 
ceipt of the Department circular, will necessitate a reorganization of the 
clerical force of the custom-house proper. It may be possible to make 
a further slight reduction in this part of the force also, in addition to 
the slight saving effected by the changes heretofore made. 

This matter I have now under consideration, and will have the honor 
to present to the Department in a few days a definite plan for the reor¬ 
ganization of this force, and, if advisable, its reduction without detri¬ 
ment to the service. 

I have the honor to be, yours, very respectfully, 

J. F. HARTRANFT, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , I). C. 


No. 107. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 

Naval Office , April 3, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the 1st instant, and, in compliance with the requests therein contained, 

I respectfully submit herewith (1) a statement of the present force of 
this office, (attached to this letter and marked “A;”) also, (2) a state¬ 
ment of the percentage of expense of this office on the duties collected 
at this port, (attached and marked “B;”) also, (3) a comparative state¬ 
ment for the years 1880-’84, inclusive, of the expenses and number of 
employes of this office, (attached and marked “C;”) and (4) a com¬ 
parative statement of the force and expenses of the six naval offices of 
the United States, (attached and marked “D.”) 

The present force of this office is now, in my j udgment, as small as 
is consistent with the faithful and proper performance of the work re¬ 
quired of the office. One clerkship (No. 5) is, and has been for over a 
year, vacant, and it has consequently been necessary to utilize our mes¬ 
senger as a clerk. It has been my purpose and rule to have the duties 
of this office performed actually as well as nominally, and every man 
in it has been and is expected and required to do his full share of the 
daily work; consequently, we have no superfluous people about the 
office. The proper auditing of the entire clerical work of the collector’s 
office requires this office practically to go carefully over the work of 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 227 


that large force and to correct all errors, if any are found to exist. If 
our present force was not efficient and expert, it could not possibly per¬ 
form this labor properly and promptly and without delay and incon¬ 
venience to importers. It has been my aim to accomplish this result 
for the public convenience, and at the same time with a strict regard 
for economy ; and I consequently cannot see how any reduction of our 
force could, in the interest of the people of the Government, be advan¬ 
tageously made at present. If, however, a reduction in the expense of 
the office (which is now less than that of any other naval office except 
the office at New Orleans) is deemed essential, I would respectfully 
recommend that the salaries rather than the number of the clerical 
force should be reduced. 

The present methods of transacting the business of the office are be¬ 
lieved to be as economical and satisfactory as any others that I could at 
present suggest, and we have not had a single complaint made by any 
importer or broker during the past year, which would seem to indicate 
their satisfaction with our present methods. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Very respectfully, 

EDWIN H. NEVIN, Jr., 

Naval Officer. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, I). O. 


[Enclosures.] 

A. 

Present force employed in the Naval Office, Philadelphia. 


Name and duty. Salary per annum. 

Edwin H. Nevin, jr., naval officer. $5, 000 00 

Fraud L. Irwin, deputy naval officer. 2, 500 00 

1. Charles R. Roberts, estimating clerk. 2,000 00 

2. Henry B. Geissinger, cashier and fee clerk. 1, 800 00 

3. Edward C. Reed, liquidating clerk. 1, 800 00 

4. Irven Smith, warehouse clerk. 1, 400 00 

5. (Vacant.) 

6. Harry H. Shautz, abstract clerk. 1, 200 00 

7. Thos. H. Chapman, messenger... 720 00 


Total... 16,420 00 


B. 

Amount of Duties collected at the Port of Philadelphia for the fiscal years 1880 to 1884, in¬ 
clusive. 


Year. Amount. 

1880 .!. $12,757,987 37 

1881 .. 11,231,598 80 

1882 . 11, 969,157 72 

1883 . 12, 250, 556 72 

1884 . 12, 977, 995 43 


Total.... 61,169,296 04 


Average for the five years, $12,233,859.21. 

Average percentage of the expense of the naval office on revenue collected, about 
JL-L of 1 per cent. 



















228 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


0 . 

Comparative statement of the force and expense of the Naval Office, Philadelphia, for the years 

1880-’84, inclusive. 


Year. 

No. em¬ 

Compensat ion. 

Entries liqui¬ 
dated. 

Errors corrected. 

ployed. 

Number. 

Amount. 

\ 

1880. 

8 

$15,120 
15,120 

13,307 

175 

$18,936 14 

1881. 

8 

12,247 

128 

8,736 35 
4,548 15 

1882 .■.. 

8 

15,320 

13,690 
14,293 

132 

1883. 

8 

16,420 
16,420 

195 

5,223 71 

1884. 

8 

13,883 

146 

3,200 88 




D. 


Comparative force and expense of the Naval Offices of the United States. 


Location. 

Naval officer. 

Deputy 
naval officer. 

Clerks. 

Messengers. 

Pay. 

New York.. 

1 

1 

86 

8 

$162,890 00 
38,100 00 
16,420 00 
22,925 00 

Boston. 

1 

1 

19 

Eh i 1 ad ol ph i a. 

1 

1 

5 

1 

San Eranciseo. 

1 

1 

8 

1 

Baltimore. 

1 

1 

6 

1 

16,620 00 
14,300 00 

New Orleans. 

1 

1 

3 

1 





Total. 

6 

6 

127 

12 

271,255 00 




No. 108. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., Appraiser’s Office, 

No. 134 South Second Street, April 6, 1885. 

My Dear Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, re¬ 
questing me to make report to what extent, in my judgment, the force 
employed in this Department can be reduced without detriment to the 
public service; also, whether the methods of doing business can be sim¬ 
plified, and, in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations 
whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and expenses 
curtailed. 

In reply permit me to say, first, that the force now employed in this 
Department does not exceed by a single individual, what is absolutely 
necessary to a proper discharge of the duties of the office. Indeed, 
occasions frequently occur when it is entirely too small to meet the 
demands made upon it. This is especially the case when sickness occurs. 
Under such circumstances, goods are sometimes not delivered to mer¬ 
chants with that promptness that they otherwise would and should be, 
but I have never felt justified in recommending an increase of force 
that would provide for these “pinching” periods. Two vacancies ex¬ 
ist at the present time—one of them a clerk, Avith an authorized salary 
of $900, the other a packer, with an authorized salary of $900. Both 
of these vacancies occurred several months since. The special duty of 
the clerk was that of counting the stitches in Hamburg edgings, to com¬ 
pute their foreign market value. Messrs. Loeb & Schoenfeld, avIio 
were formerly very large importers of this class of merchandise through 
this port, removed their business to New York, and thus reduced the 
extent of this business to such a point that I did not feel justified in 




































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 229 

asking for the continuance of this clerk. Another firm, Messrs. M. H. 
Pulaski & Co., commenced several months since the importation of this 
class of merchandise. Their business has grown very rapidly, and it 
is not impossible that in a short time the work will become so" large as 
to require the reappointment of this clerk. The vacancy of the packer 
resulted from a nomination and election to the legislature of Pennsyl¬ 
vania. As the importing business fell off last fall considerably, I did 
not think it advisable to fill this vacancy. - 

Philadelphia has a very extended customs district, not only embrac¬ 
ing the Delaware river fronts on both sides, from the city of Chester to 
the highest point of navigation, but likewise the River Schuylkill. 
The grain-elevators on the Schuylkill are located some five miles from 
this office, and qre inaccessible for a great portion of the distance by 
street-railway. We are compelled to make frequent trips to this point 
for the examination of bags, barrels, iron, and other heavy articles of 
merchandise. Gibson’s Point, Greenwich Point, Point Breeze, and 
Port Richmond are locations on the Rivers Delaware and Schuylkill 
where oil is loaded and empty oil-barrels returned. All these places 
are from four to five miles distant from this office. To attend to the 
business of these places requires the services of several men and a very 
great deal of time. 

The system of examining and testing sugars and molasses under the 
act of March 3, 1883, largely increased the force of this department. 
During the year 1884 three refineries were in operation in this city, 
and which largely augmented the importations of sugar. The total 
imports of sugars for the year 1883 were as follows: Hogsheads, 89,214; 
bags and mats, 135,635. For the year 1884: Hogsheads, 125,892; bags 
and mats, 279,216. 

You will notice from these statements that there was an increase of 
36,678 hogsheads and 143,581 bags and mats in the importations of the 
year 1884 over those of 1883. This labor required the employment, on 
an average, of four samplers and as many laborers constantly on the 
wharf, together with the examiner who superintends the sampling of 
the sugars. In the laboratory there are some five persons employed, 
independent of Assistant Appraiser Gaw, who supervises the work. 
This makes a very heavy drain upon our force. 

Second. I was under the impression that some modifications in the 
present system of sampling sugars might be made without detriment 
to the service. Twenty-five per cent, of all hogsheads received are set 
aside by the collector to be sampled. Each hogshead is required to be 
bored from the centre of the head, and a sample of sugar taken there¬ 
from extending from the head to the foot of the cask. Each sample 
thus taken is placed in a small tin box and a paper label attached thereto, 
giving the mark and number of the hogshead from which the sample 
was taken. All this, you will notice, involves very considerable time 
and labor. I am assured by Assistant Appraiser Gaw, however, that 
it is necessary to a correct sampling of the cargo, as well as to attain 
reliable results from the system of polarizing, that the present system 
should be continued; and from the statements made, I am inclined to 
accept them as correct. The amount of money involved is too great to 
make experiments of doubtful results. This is the only department in 
which I thought a change of system could possibly be made. 

The assistant appraisers, in addition to their other duties of inspect¬ 
ing examiners’ returns made upon invoices, are required to perform the 


230 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

duties of examiners with, reference to certain classes of merchandise. 
If this was not required of them, the force of examiners would have to 
be enlarged. In looking over the entire business of this office. I do not 
see that the present system could be advantageously changed; nor do 
I see how it would be possible to transact the business with any degree 
of satisfaction to the mercantile community with a smaller force than 
is now employed. 

Yours, truly, 

E. B. MOORE, 

United States Appraiser . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Yo. 109. 


Custom-House, Pittsburgh, Pa., 

Surveyors Office , July 2, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to letter of Department, 30th June, requesting me to 
name the inspector of customs whose service can be dispensed with, I 
would state that, owing to the fact that the services of Frank W. Tallon 
and Charles McEnulty have been dispensed with since June 30, and the 
nominations of their successors have not yet been approved by the Depart¬ 
ment, I have but two inspectors on duty, viz., John S. Dravo, on out¬ 
side duty, and Thomas Y. Christy, detailed for office duty. As the per¬ 
sons nominated are not familiar with the duties incumbent, it will re¬ 
quire some time to render them effective. Owing to the additional 
duties and work in the office in closing the busines of the past fiscal year, 
I would prefer to not reduce in number the force at present employed,. 

Yery respectfully, 

D. O. BARE, 
Surveyor of Customs , 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


Yo. 110. 

Custom-House, Plattsburg, Y. Y., 

Collectors Office , April 18, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department let¬ 
ter of the 1 st instant, requesting me to report in writing to what extent, 
in my opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced 
without detriment to the public service; whether the methods of doing 
business can be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions 
and recommendations as may occur to me whereby the efficiency of the 
service may be improved and the expenses curtailed. 

The force employed in this district at present consists of one collec¬ 
tor, one deputy collector, and twenty-one deputy collectors and inspect¬ 
ors 5 also, a janitor for the Government building at Plattsburg. The 
latter, of course, should not be included in taking an account of the 
force engaged in collecting the revenue, which amounts to twenty-three, 
officers all told. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 231 

In order to understand the requirements of the district, I beg to call 
attention to the following facts : The district of Champlain comprises 
all the land frontier in the State of New York, extending from Lake 
Champlain at Rouse’s Point to Hogansburg, on the St. Lawrence river, 
nearly seventy miles. 

Between Rouse’s Point and Hogansburg there are nine sub-ports 
where duties are collected ; there is also a port of delivery at Whitehall, 
the head of the lake, where-large quantities of lumber are discharged, 
counted, and measured from vessels arriving from Canada via Rouse’s 
Point. 

In addition to the commerce carried on by boats from Canada via 
Rouse’s Point, the Yew York and Canada Railroad enters the district 
at that point. This road makes direct connection with Yew York and 
other intermediate cities. 

Large quantities of freight are imported by this route; the goods of 
the Yational Express from Montreal also come by this line. This 
road does an extensive passenger business also, and in the summer 
season it is one of the favorite routes for pleasure travel.. 

The Canada Atlantic Railroad, recently opened, has its American 
terminus at Rouse’s Point also. 

Two other branches of the Grand Trunk Railway enter the district, 
one at Mooers Junction and one at Fort Covington. In addition to 
the ordinary land traffic at Fort Covington and Hogansburg, St. Law¬ 
rence river vessels touch and trade, and some enter and clear. 

With the exception of Rouse’s Point, there is but one officer stationed 
at each outside frontier port, and there is one officer stationed at Malone, 
a large town a little in rear of the cordon of frontier ports, whose duty 
is to look after smuggling and assist other frontier officers, as occasion 
may require. 

There is one officer stationed at Montreal, associated with officers 
from the Vermont district in the examination of passengers’ baggage 
and the transfer of goods in transit. 

One officer is required to run constantly on the passenger-trains ar¬ 
riving at Rouse’s Point from Montreal, and sometimes two officers 
are required, especially in the summer-time, during the period of pleas¬ 
ure travel. 

Two permanent officers are employed at Whitehall, in addition to two 
summer men. In the winter, one of the permanent Whitehall officers 
is transferred to Rouse’s Point for duty. 

There are employed at Rouse’s Point, in addition to the men on the 
train, six officers, and during the season of navigation two additional 
officers. 

During the fiscal year ended June 30,18£4, there were at Rouse’s Point 
1,271 vessels entered from foreign ports, 1,034 vessels cleared for foreign 
ports, 853 coastwise clearances, 2,316 entries of merchandise for duty, 
1,781 free entries, 642 warehouse and transportation entries, 66 entries 
for transportation and exportation via Yew York, and there was col¬ 
lected duties on imports, $262,763.83; tonnage, $9,704.89. I think it 
will be apparent from these facts that the force employed at Rouse’s Point 
is barely sufficient for the labor required. The force at Whitehall is re¬ 
quired to count and measure lumber discharged at that port, and has not 
been found heretofore too large for the labor required. Of course, the 
amount of lumber delivered at that port would govern as to force required. 
It may be possible that trade on the lake during the coming season will 


232 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF .THE TREASURY. 


be lighter, owing to a constantly increasing business by rail and a prob¬ 
ability of a falling off in the aggregate importation of lumber from Can¬ 
ada. In such case, if the demands of trade would permit, there might 
be a reduction of the force employed during the season of navigation 
only. 

At Plattsburg I have with me a special deputy and two deputy col¬ 
lectors and inspectors, which force I find barely adequate for the 
preparation of all reports, returns, and accounts required by the De¬ 
partment, the keeping of the records of the entire district, the- enrol¬ 
ment, licensing, and measuring of vessels, correspondence, reappraise¬ 
ments, and the collection of duties, &c. My officers work harder than 
persons employed in assimilated private business, and, I believe, com¬ 
pare favorably in ability with persons in station in civil life or in the 
employ of the State of New York. 

Notwithstanding the large amount of frontier protected by my force, 
and the large amount of services required growing out of passenger 
travel, which of course renders but little revenue to the Government, 
and with one of the largest lists of vessels on the frontier to enroll and 
license, I find, by an examination of the finance report for 1884, (page 
67,) that the rate for expense of collecting the revenue in this district 
was from 20 to 25 per cent, lower during the fiscal year ended June 30, 
1884, than in either of the two contiguous districts, viz., Oswegatcliie 
and Vermont, my district standing within sixteen of the lowest in point 
of rate of expense in some 137 ports reported in the statement referred to. 

I enclose a list of my force, showing designation, compensation, and 
station, and indicating briefly the nature of the duty performed. 

As regards the simplification of business, I beg to state that many of 
the proceedings in customs matters are in pursuance of statutory pro¬ 
visions, and of course do not admit of modification. 

Such matters as are subjects of regulations only are susceptible of im¬ 
mediate change. I find, however, that many of these regulations are 
in pursuance of special statutes authorizing the Secretary to provide 
regulations in the case, and that usually such regulations have been 
carefully prepared by the proper authorities. 

I am, very respectfully, 

S. MOFFITT, 

Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


[Enclosure.] 

List of Officers employed in the District of Champlain, April 18, 1885, giving designation, station, compensation, Ac. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


d 

3 

3 


43 

a 

>> 

-*M 

3 

d 

v. 

O 

43 

t* 

3 

-m» 

cS 

£ 


<u 

3 

<3 

. d 

43 3 

M 3 

° a 

P 

43 O 

33 3 

c c 
0 -" 
a » 

r* co 
?H co 

O c3 
o - 


2 o 

a, £ 

CO 3 

gj 

o o 

c 3 
o © 


— d 

® a 

CL 

j! 


§c-g • 

81! 

HH r , 'v 

HH sj 


§ £ 
•< o 

«r ° 

.3 » 

-m> H3 

.2 O 
d o 
Ji be 


o s 

3 O 

cs A 
0) 43 


o 

33 


0-5 

x _x 

A A 

g 8 

r— e * H 

§ I? 

xi .G 
C 1/3 

5 3 


G « 


.3 

'3 

a 

* 

*43 

x 

o 

M 


.3 s 

03 O 

-m> a; r “ 

! 5 © § 

„ CO — ~ 

■a’Sil 

43 0 3 3 

a; — —. 

C* | 2 g 
3 o 1 

af ° it bfi 

•Sg.S.5 


<3 

o 

G 2 


o 
. A 


d 

C3 

be 


o 

d 


- 3 
M3 O 

J* d . 

A mm o » 

y - o In 

mm 43 8 S9 a? 

O ShV, 

d 3 " 3 

A o be A d 

'— 3 3 3 

S - - O 

< 1 K a a 


X 43 ~ P 

GMscS 
14 5, d o> d 
. r .2- c3 

•d rtdd o 

O X 3 3 t- 

4?Is -3 


a a 


tc 

g 


d r __ 

5 3 ^ 

1 d’f^ 

g mm 
. Cm X X 

C*% >"* f— *rH 

x 


<3 

d A 

G —: rg 13 


>> O x 

a o os 

a; : e_ 

s 

O O 3 

be a , 

0 ) 43 

►P 3 

S3 be A 
be« ,j 
s Sh 

oj J3 rb 

A fl 


C t, c « © 3 c 


g*0 O O CO c$ 


co c; 2 *+ 

a i ^ 


2 o 

^ CO CO 

X *£ ^ o 
op 
Cl 

1/ CC 

V M 2 ® 

M rv? - r 


a ?f 

« 03 

03 « 


Si o 

^ a 

oi 

be 9 

■C o 

" 3- 

_ ^ be 

w ^ 5^ 
_ 


<u 

« 


ohv. oj o3 


■“ x 3 

Km 


0 ) 

o 

o 

M 

<-i 

. * M3 • 

3 44 S 
S3 J><3 
rt bo os 

a 

o-s o 

0^0 


"3 44 c 

(i) 0) o 

o CO 

5£a O 
o o > 

Vm %-* *T] 

OOjb 

03 43 4)ij 

be be S' , 

^ CO’ 
Cw C3 f- 

'3^3 o 
l :c; r ‘ 


C ►. o3 ^ 3 
G f"”33 
" T >> ^ 3 
>, bea ~ ^ 
f -5 boita 
be > 3 .3 tH 

r 'E £ - 0 

•S: 8 c & g 

r _B3 m 03 -2 

^ "o * £ 

03 O-Od 41 
r— O X O ^ 
o O ® 
o . ~ be ® c c 
be 03 

. r M •- bc -- 

.3 3 ? 3d 

5 a 2 a 
a 2 5 
S-e =d 

+5 Cv 

c3 c5 '■’i 

W W W TO ^ 


c3 


^ ^ a. ^ .i; 

ooo o<n 
0,0, 0,0,0 
V, s*_. v, t *-« V, 

0 0 0 0 0 3 
3 3 3 3 3*i 

be be ce be be - 

t, u u t- ^ CO 

03 03 03 03 03 p 

o o o o o S 


© oj 

se x 

bed 

G O 

S O 

3 be 

&» 
03 — 













3 G 

G : 

: 3 3 3 : : 


• 0 

3 

0 x * 



G 

0 0 

0 0 

p 0 5 0 p X 

s 

0 0 


oop 

G G G P G 

G 

O 

£ 0 

g 43 

o £2 x 0 & o 


43 G 

r* 

0^2 

43 43 43 P 43 

43 


2 2 

2 T3 

'p 2 2 2 ~z "w 

d 

'O cC 

2 

2 p'O 

r O 'p "^5 r p r P 

d 

co 

^ a. 

a, a. 

a a a a a a 

a. 

a, a. 

a. 

a a a 

a, a, a, a, a. 

a. 

c 

43 43 

43 43 

o o o o o o 

<D 

o o 

0) 

0 CD O 

ooooo 

o 

43 

0, 0, 

Om 0, 

0, 0, Om o, 0, 0, 

a 

a a 

a 

O, 0, 0, 

aaaaa 

a 

P, 

88 

O 

O ^ 

p O C O lO 

O O O O ^ 

kO 

o B 

O 

o 

S83 

OOOOO 

Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 

O 

d 

O 

O 

11 

O 

O 

MOOOMfl 

Cl 

co o 

8 

Ci 

si" 

ci d ci ci ci 

d 


0\ rH 

rH 



i—r 







: ni 




O 

: 2 
: P< 

: : 
: M / 



o 

£ 


be 


►2 

Sbe 

O' ^ 

GO© 

•a&£ 

A d 


X 

JM 

43 

O 

O 

e 

43d S 
111 

*—• 

^ C0 HH 

p = 

S 1 0 

O 'T O 

S O h 

O <H» w 

brp 
n —< 

H-( 

^5 

o^h 




_0 

a 

C/3 


be 


a o 

x 'C 


0 o 


0 

a 

i”oo 

Pdd 


o o 


o o 


.2 

a 

o3 

(M 

be 

’55 

4) 

a 


a g, 
2 « 


CO 0 

O +-* 

o v 

vh A 

© o 

?-< o 

5^ 

^O o 

o ^ 
OQ 


0, O 

o ^ 

*3 0 

r-, O 

•M >> O 
43 Mj 

43 3 

a a 

X 43 

Q 


M © 

S3 ® 

" 3.2 

r O "O 
2 2 
o o 

■/ / -4—3 

O 43 

A ° 

O O 
43 43 

>>>■.0000 
A Add' 


43 43 

fifi 


o 

d 


o o 

d d 


ooo ooooo 


03 

£ 


53 

O.G 

MM MX 

^ S 

C MM 

3 

M- M 

a m 

4) 

A o 

d 


>> : C 3 
3 : d c3 G 

2 43 0 

«5 A cs G A 2 

o.©a 3 js 3 
a ^ 2 ^ ^ d 


cS 

o 


>> A G 


O Om GmTI 


cc> 


43 43 O •— . 

a be 43 s g ^ 

0 Sj."J) • 

wwa^aa 


CO • 

o : 


d :« 



a- . H 
O * 'T 1 

b 5 

o o 

o 

|x| 

h -* 

MMG5 

£ 

CO 

^icc 

^’w 

O 

Ph 

®q*W 

d 72 

d 

^OQP,* 


43 

o, 

a-r 


43 2 
a ^ 


M o 

r ~ I >—S •_. 


5 ^ 

oa 


t 0 

03 43 

O0 


rn 

< 




233 






































































































234 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


NO. 111. 


Custom-House, Port Huron, Mich., 

Collector 1 s Office, April 8, 1885. 


Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
circular of the 1st instant, requesting me to “report in writing to what 
extent the force employed under your (my) direction can be reduced 
without detriment to the public service; whether the methods #f doing 
business can be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions 
and recommendations as may occur to you (me) whereby the efficiency 
of the service maybe im proved, and the expenses curtailed. 7 ’ 

In reply, I have the honor to state that I have received the resigna¬ 
tion of John W. Brakeman, written on the 15th day of March, to take 
effect on the 1st instant; I have also received the resignation of Ezra 
Hazen, written on the 14th ultimo, to take effect on the 1st instant. ' I 
have accepted the resignation of both of these officers, and shall make 
no recommendation to fill their places. 

For many years an officer has been stationed at Lexington, on the 
shore of Lake Huron. I have made a careful investigation of the busi¬ 
ness done there, and am satisfied that the officer at that point may be 
relieved without injury to the service. I do not think that there is any 
other outside port in this district where an officer can be relieved with¬ 
out injury to the service, or without greatly discommoding those en¬ 
gaged in commerce on these lakes. 

At this season of the year the business transacted by the customs 
force stationed at this port is the greatest, and just at present is un¬ 
usually large. I can discover no way in which I can reduce the force 
at present more than I have done already as shown above, except the 
officer at Lexington, (Mr. Anthony M. Oldfield, deputy collector and 
inspector, at 50 cents per day.) 

I will carefully watch the business of the district, and will make fur¬ 
ther reduction if the condition of the business will warrant it. 

I can at present see no way by which I can improve the efficiency of 
the service here. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. HARTSUFF, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 112. 

Custom-House, Portland, Me., 

Collector 1 s Office , April 8, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your letter of the 1st instant, requesting me to re¬ 
port in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the folce employed 
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public 
service, and to make such suggestions and recommendations as may 
occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved 
and the expenses curtailed, I have the honor most respectfully to reply 
that it will be borne in mind that this is a port where the transit, reware- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


235 


house, transportation, and exportation business (which does not show in 
the matter of duties collected) bears a very large proportion to our other 
business, and entails a large expense without corresponding receipts. 
To illustrate: While the duties which have been collected at this port 
during the five months ending March 31, 1884, amount to #145,415.72, 
the duties assessed upon merchandise warehoused, rewarehoused, trans¬ 
ported, and exported, including merchandise bonded at the port during 
the sam5 period, amounted to $1,920,323.92, and upon this business, 
represented by the last-mentioned amount, it will be seen that the clerical 
labor and supervision at this port is greater than if the above duties 
were actually collected. But for the sugar business of the port, the 
duties actually collected here would be reduced to an insignificant 
amount, yet the absolute cessation of that business would reduce the 
expenses but a comparatively slight degree. 

If the business at this port was equally distributed as to days and 
seasons, or if a due regard to the interests of importers would permit 
delays more or less extended in the delivery of their merchandise, a 
reduction in the force in this district further than as suggested below 
might with propriety be made. But the problem of being always able 
to attend to business above the average in amount with that promptness 
which seems the right of, and which is often necessary to prevent serious 
loss to, the importers, and avoid having on the force some men not 
actually employed when business is below the average, has not yet been 
solved (in every department) satisfactory to my mind at this port. 

Collector’s office .—In this department, where the work is largely 
clerical, no difficulty was encountered in accomplishing it, and since I 
assumed my office the work is done with two less clerks than formerly, 
save that during the past winter a clerk, whose term will expire April 
30, has been temporarily employed. Those now employed are, with¬ 
out exception, competent, diligent, and faithful, and, after carefully con¬ 
sidering the subject, I do not think it practicable to further reduce the 
force and perform the work of the office, make the required reports to 
the Department, and accommodate those doing business at the port with 
the promptness and accuracy essential. In emergencies, it is true, the 
force in the collector’s office has sometimes been re-enforced temporarily 
by the services of an inspector, who could be spared for the purpose 
from the surveyor’s department. 

Surveyor’s department .—I append herewith a copy of a letter, marked 
“A,” from the surveyor, in answer to inquiries addressed by me. The 
so-called “permanent” force of inspectors to which he refers numbers 
fifteen. There are two others borne on our rolls, who report to and are 
paid at this office, whose duties are not connected with the service in 
this district, viz., one at Danville Junction, (that of the Grand Trunk 
with the Maine Central Railroad)—in regard to this officer, I am of 
the opinion that the compensation allowed him is excessive for the 
duties performed ; and another stationed at Coaticook, P. Q. 

Referring to the statement of the surveyor to the effect that the force 
is now “too small for a thorough supervision of the business of the 
port,” I have to say that thus far I have been unwilling to recommend 
any addition thereto. 

Temporary force .—It is customary and necessary to employ at this, 
port every ivinter inspectors in addition to the “permanent” force for 
a period commencing in November and expiring April 30, or during 
the time of the arrival of foreign steamships at this port. 


236 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


It is impossible always to forecast the number of men that may be 
necessary. When I assumed my office, in the winter of 1882-’ 831 found 
fifteen temporary day-inspectors on the rolls and six night-inspectors. 
That winter, in connection with our other work, thirty-nine foreign 
steamers entered, discharged, and took in cargoes at and cleared from 
this port. The next winter, that of 1883-’ 84, in the belief that that force 
could be reduced without detriment to the service. I nominated but 
twelve temporary inspectors. But the business of the port unexpect¬ 
edly increased very much, there being fifty-one entrances and clearances 
of foreign steamers, against thirty-nine the year before; and it was with 
great difficulty that the necessary supervision was performed. 

At the opening of the present winter season, I nominated eleven 
temporary inspectors, (of whom ten are now in service,) and, for reasons " 
stated in a letter of October 17, 1884, to and after the approval of the 
Department, in addition thereto, four watchmen. But the business of 
the port decreased this winter, the number of foreign steamships fall¬ 
ing from fifty-one last to thirty-eight this season. 

I have dwelt thus at length on this point for the purpose of empha¬ 
sizing the fact that it is not always possible to anticipate the amount of 
service that may be required, and to suggest a method whereby, if it is 
deemed practicable and desirable by the Secretary, an opportunity for 
a reduction of expenses may be afforded, and, at the same time, pro¬ 
vision made for unexpected work. It is, that not more than seven men 
should be appointed on the temporary or winter force, and that it should 
be understood that the collector is to designate, under article 1363 of 
the Regulations of 1884, a number of men to act as occasional inspect¬ 
ors, wlio should report for duty only as they should be summoned, 
where exigencies of the service should require it. Under this system, 
the winter force can be made adjustable to the varying exigencies which 
may arise in the business of the port; and I believe that it would not 
be difficult to find upon the list of eligibles for appointment those who 
would accept such places, though the employment and compensation 
would be intermittent. 

Shortly after my accession to office, upon representations made to 
me and for reasons stated in my letter to the Department of March 2, 
1883, I recommended an increase of the force in this the surveyor’s 
department of one weigher and gauger. Since that time the business 
of the port in that particular line of work, owing in part to more im¬ 
mediate-transportation business at expense of the consumption entries 
and decrease of coal business, has fallen off, and the reasons which then 
obtained for three weighers and gaugers are not as strong as then. At 
times the service of three men are-still needed to avoid delays to im¬ 
porters, and the necessity for expert, competent, and thoroughly relia¬ 
ble men in that department of work seems to render the employment 
of temporary weighers objectionable. If the suggestion which I shall 
make as to polariscopic tests of sugar, under the head of the appraiser’s 
department, should be approved, I think the retention of the three 
weighers and gaugers would be warranted; otherwise, I am of the 
opinion that a reduction of one in that department should be made. 

Appraiser’s department .—The expenses in this department have been 
increased since my accession to office by the employment, under the 
authority of the Department letter of May 8, 1883, of an examiner, at 
a salary of $1,000 per annum, to make polariscopic tests of sugar and 
molasses. I enclose herewith a copy of a letter of the appraiser, marked 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


237 


“B.” It is the fact that the importations of sugar and molasses at this 
port, together with samples of such which from time to time are sent 
from other ports for such tests, are not sufficient to employ all the time 
of the examiner appointed for such purpose, and but for the necessity 
under the law of polariscopic tests, his services could be dispensed with. 
It is possible that such tests could be made at the Boston office $ but 
such a change would necessarily involve vexatious, and in some in¬ 
stances, doubtless, expensive delays to the importer, and afford them 
moi # e or less just ground for dissatisfaction and complaint. 

I think that the examiner in that office can be discharged, and that 
the polariscopic tests can be made by one of our weighers and gaugers 
in leisure hours, who possesses knowledge of the business and those 
peculiar qualifications which will enable him to perform those tests to 
the entire satisfaction of the Government and the importers. If this 
recommendation should be approved by the Department, it would save 
the salary of the examiner, of $1,000. 

Lowelltown .—Owing to the fact that the Lake Megantic Railroad has 
been building across the Canadian border at Lowelltown, in the northern 
part of this district, it has been necessary to station an officer there. 
His salary, $1,000, is out of proportion to the duties collected, but his 
presence there seems absolutely indispensable to transact the necessary 
business, which will be constantly increasing, and to prevent smuggling, 
which before his appointment could be carried on with impunity. The 
prejudice existing on the border against customs officers was such that 
I was unable to find a suitable person engaged in other business in that 
vicinity who would attend to the requisite work, and the necessity for 
sending a man there from a distance, who could engage in no other 
business, required the payment of a salary which would secure com¬ 
petency and reliability. 

In further illustration of the variableness in quantity of the business 
at this port, I may state that, as it is largely done by a few large con¬ 
cerns, any change in the methods of one of them may make a very great 
proportional difference. For instance, during the year 1883-’ 84, the 
Grand Trunk Railroad and one line of foreign steamers imported all 
their coal. This last year the coal used by these concerns has been 
largely of domestic origin. 

After the 1st of July, when the duty on Canadian fish will obtain, 
business in that line will naturally increase to some extent. How much 
cannot be predicted, but during the last year, in which duties on fish 
from the provinces were collected, over thirteen millions of pounds 
were weighed here. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

FRED. A. DOW, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


[Enclosure.] 

Custom-House, Portland, Me., 

Surveyor’s Office , April 7, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of the 30th instant, I have to say that our permanent 
force of inspectors cannot be reduced without positive detriment to the service, the 
force being now too small for a thorough supervision of the business of this port. 


238 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The employment of the temporary inspectors is somewhat irregular, in consequence of 
the movements of the steamers plying between this port and Liverpool. When three 
or more steamers are in port at the same time, the force is closely employed; but when 
but one or two steamers are in port, we have from two to four superfluous inspectors. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

STANLEY T. PULLEN, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. F. N. Dow, 

Collector. 


No. 113. 

Custom-House, Portland, Me., 

Appraiser’s Office, April 7, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to your letter of the 3d instant, relating to the prac¬ 
ticability of reducing the force in this office, and asking whether the 
methods of doing business can be simplified, I beg to say, for some 
years prior to the appointment of Mr. Brenning as examiner, especially 
for the purpose of making polariscopic tests of sugar and molasses, the 
appraiser, assistant appraiser, and one opener and packer and sampler 
were able to do the work of the office; and were it not for the neces¬ 
sity of making these tests, the services of Mr. Brenning could be dis¬ 
pensed with; but when he is not employed with the polariscope, he 
assists in the other duties of the office, and when the business is pressing, 
as is often the case, his assistance facilitates the work and prevents delay 
in the delivery of goods to the importers. 

In relation to the methods of transacting the business of the office, I 
have endeavored to adopt from time to time such improved methods as 
have appeared practicable, and no. change in that regard occurs to me 
as desirable at present. 

Yery respectfuil y, 

SIDNEY PERHAM, 

Hon. Fred. N. Dow, Appraiser. 

Collector. 


No. 114. 

Custom-House, Portland, Oreg., 

Collector’s Office , April 18, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter dated the 1st instant, I have the honor to 
•say that the customs service in this district has been organized under 
my persona] supervision during the past twelve years, as chief deputy 
and as collector of customs. 

It has always been my endeavor to administer the office as econom¬ 
ically as the best interests of the service and the prompt and efficient 
transaction of business would permit. The records of the Department 
will, I think, show that the per cent, of cost of collecting the revenue 
in the district of Willamette is as low, in proportion to the amount col¬ 
lected, (viz., .078 per cent-.,) as in any other district, excepting the few 
large districts of New York, San Francisco, &c. (See report of the 
supervising special agent for the year ending June 30, 1884.) 

The inside force of the office consists of one special deputy, in charge 
of the collection of duties, liquidation of entries, and disbursing accounts; 
one deputy, in charge of the customs, registration, hospital-dues, marine 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 239 


hospital, custodian and shipping commissioners’ accounts, and the ad¬ 
measurement of vessels; two clerks, one in charge of reports for the 
Bureau of Statistics, permits, and drawback accounts, and one in charge 
of warehouse and bond accounts and general recording and copying. 

These several officers are constantly employed during office-hours, and 
frequently long after office-hours, in the discharge of their respective 
duties. I do not consider it for the best interest of the service to rec¬ 
ommend any reduction in this force; in fact, the business of the office 
could not well be conducted with a less force. 

The force of weighers and gaugers consists of one weigher and one 
weigher and gauger, both of which officers are necessary, as their duties 
extend along the river for three miles at points where vessels are dis¬ 
charging cargoes. 

The present force of inspectors at this port consists of four day-in¬ 
spectors and four night-inspectors. It is true that at times the entire 
force of inspectors is not engaged discharging vessels, but when .not 
thus engaged it is employed looking after immediate-transportation and 
in-transit merchandise arriving by rail, examining vessels arriving in 
ballast, and guarding against the unlawful importation of merchandise 
from ships’ stores, &c. I deem it quite as important that experienced 
officers be employed for this purpose as for the unlading of foreign car¬ 
goes. Were this force reduced, the requirements of the service would 
compel the employment of temporary inspectors, and reliable men can¬ 
not usually be found for such duties when wanted. 

In view of the foregoing, and of the number of vessels arriving at 
and the extent of the limits of this port, I am of the opinion that the 
number of inspectors ought not to be reduced. 

The appraiser’s department has but one regular employe to assist the 
appraiser, (the opener and packer,) whose services are required in the ’ 
opening and repacking of goods to be examined lor the assessment of 
duties. 

As to the salaries of the officers employed in this district, I am satis¬ 
fied that their compensation is not greater than that paid by private 
individuals and corporations for similar services, and at which respon¬ 
sible and reliable employes can be obtained. 

In conclusion, I have to say that there are'no superfluous or unneces- 
sary officers employed in this district, and I know of no method of sim- ’ 
plifying the transaction of business in this office under the present sys¬ 
tem of accounting established by the Treasury Department. 

Very respectfully, 

F. N. SHUBTLEFF, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 7). C. 


No. 115. 

Custom-House, Portsmouth, N. H., 

Collector's Office , April 11, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to circular letter of the 1st instant, relative to the re¬ 
duction of the force employed under my direction, I will say that while 
the business of this office has fallen off during the past winter, yet, with 
the prospect of increase during the spring and summer, I am not in- 



240 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


dined at this time to recommend a reduction. One change, however, 
could be made which would increase the efficiency of the service. At 
present, Deputy Collector Wm. B. Morrill has charge of the interior 
ports of Dover, Exeter, and New Market, and resides at Exeter. Dover 
being the only one of these places where any considerable business is 
transacted, this officer should, in my opinion, reside at that place in¬ 
stead of Exeter. As Mr. Morrill is permanently located at Exeter, and 
would not remove to Dover, I would respectfully recommend that the 
present position of deputy collector and inspector at Exeter be abol¬ 
ished. I would also nominate and solicit your approval to appoint 
Joshua L. Foster, of Dover, as deputy collector and inspector of cus¬ 
toms at that port, at a compensation of $1.90 per diem, which is the 
present compensation of Mr. Morrill. Mr. Foster is not an appli¬ 
cant for the position, consequently the written application and certifi¬ 
cates are omitted. Mr. Foster is editor of “Foster’s Democrat,’ 7 and 
is one of the ablest Democratic writers in New England. His age is about 
50. He is of excellent character, and in every respect well qualified 
for the position. He has never served in the Army or Navy, was born 
born in New Hampshire, and would be appointed from the same State. 

Very respect full v, 

A. F. HOWARD, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector . 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 116. 

Custom-House, Port Townsend, Wash., 

Collector's Office , April 22, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
circular of the 1st instant, requesting to know if, in my opinion, the 
force under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public 
service, &c. In reply, I have to state that I do not think the force can 
be reduced without material injury to the service, and I know of no 
way by which “the service may be improved” and at the same time 
41 the expenses curtailed. 7 7 

I do not think the efficiency of the service would be increased by in¬ 
creasing the force and reducing the remuneration of the officers. The 
cost of living in this district is higher than in most others, on account 
of the great distance from manufacturing centres and the high rates of 
freight. On the contrary, I think the service could be much improved 
by having a larger force. This would necessarily involve an increase 
in the expenses, but the revenue 1*think would be increased, and the 
service and Government be benefited more than the additional cost of 
the extra officers, by the prevention to a greater extent of the illegal 
importation of merchandise. We have here a very large district, with 
a frontier line on land of some 350 miles, and a "coast-line of not less 
than 1,000, and including islands, 2,000 miles, to guard. 

The customs force in this district is at the present time but little 
larger than it was thirteen years ago, while the amount of business 
transacted has increased between two and three fold. I beg to submit 
for your consideration the following brief statement or comparison of 
business transacted thirteen years since and during the last fiscal year: 

In the years 1872, 1873, and 1874 there were from nineteen to twenty 
employes, and the number of entrances and clearances averaged 753 a 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 241 


year. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, the entrances and clear¬ 
ances amounted to 1,748. 

In the year 1880 the number of employes was 18. Vessels entered 
and cleared, 723; total collections, $17,864; total expenditures, $24,495; 
rate per cent, for collecting, $137. 

In the year 1884 the number of employes was 19. Vessels entered 
and cleared, 1,748; total collections, $67,245; total expenditures, $26,108; 
rate per cent, for collecting, 38—a very remarkable increase in the 
period of four years. 

In comparing the present number of employes in this district, and 
the work performed by them, with the number of the force, and the 
work performed in the years 1872 to 1880, it should be noted that dur¬ 
ing the last two years the “Chinese restriction act ” has added greatly to 
the duties of nearly all my officers, and without adding a single dollar to 
the revenue. The completion of the Union Pacific Railroad, and con¬ 
sequent opening of an in transitu bonding business, necessitates the al¬ 
most undivided attention of one officer at Tacoma, and of one clerk at 
this office, and a large portion of the time of three inspectors travelling 
on steamers—not increasing the revenue, but taking the employes away 
from their regular duties of guarding the frontier and searching vessels; 
and, finally the near approach towards completion of the Canadian 
Pacific Railroad has already began to cause work for our officers on the 
border-line. At present we have but three officers stationed near the 
line—one at O’Sooyoos lake, exactly on the line in Eastern Washing¬ 
ton ; one at Fort Colville, also in Eastern Washington; and one at 
Sehome, on Bellingham Bay, about thirty miles from the line. It is 
impossible for these three officers efficiently to guard the whole terri¬ 
tory under their charge. I think the officer at O’ Sooyoos is well placed, 
as the principal trails to and from British Columbia in that section of 
country converge at that point, and probably one officer there is at 
present sufficient. 

The officer at Colville, Eastern Washington, is absolutely necessary 
in consequence of there now being a steamer running from Colville, on 
the upper Columbia river, into British Columbia. The officer at Se¬ 
home is also much needed. Two trails from British Columbia con¬ 
verge at Bellingham Bay, and four regular coasting steamers ply be¬ 
tween that point and other cities on the Sound from one to three times 
a week each, thus affording excellent facilities for quickly removing 
contraband goods which may be brought overland. It is almost im¬ 
possible to prevent smuggling by water in this district, on account of 
its close proximity to British Columbia, and nothing but a strong force 
of cruising inspectors will render the business so hazardous and un¬ 
profitable that it will seldom be attempted. By land it is much easier 
to prevent it, and with the addition of a few more inspectors, at points 
which I will designate, I think the service would be as effective as 
would be necessary for some time to come. 

I would recommend that a mounted inspector and a boatman be at 
once appointed at Semiahmoo, the extreme northwestern point of this 
Territory, and adjoining the boundary-line. This is a most important 
point, and an officer should be permanently stationed there. 

The town of Blaine has recently been laid out on the American side, 
close to the line, and one will soon be located on the English side, 
directly opposite. Semiahmoo bay, or Drayton harbor, is a small but 
safe harbor, about half a mile wide at the entrance, and entirely on the 
American side of the line, but, being so close to the line, is often used by 

16 A 


242 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


British vessels as a port of refuge in bad weather, under the plea of 
“stress of weather;” and it is easy to see that an extensive smuggling 
business may be done there in the absence of revenue officers. 

Another inspector and a boat, I think, should also be placed at Sehome, 
so that one officer can always remain at Sehome to attend to the shipping, 
and the other (mounted) to patrol the roads and*trails leading towards 
the line. 

I would recommend that an officer with a boat be stationed at La 


Conner, a small town on the route of steamers and small craft passing 
between points north towards the boundary-line and the cities of 
Seattle and Tacoma. This also is an important station, this route in 
past yearshaving been much used by smugglers, and if rumor is correct 
is still being used, the waters being very shallow and unapproachable 
by the revenue-cutter. 

From Port Townsend to the entrance of the Straits of Fuca, a dis¬ 
tance of ninety miles, we have a shore-line lying from fifteen to twenty 
miles distant from the British shore, and no revenue officer in the whole 
distance. 1 think an officer should be stationed at Port Angeles, a 
town about midway from here to the sea, with instructions to make 
frequent trips on the steamers to Neah Bay, at the entrance to the 
straits. I also think that, for a time at least, it would be well to place 
an officer at Sand Point, in Idaho, on the line of the Union Pacific 
Railroad, until it is seen what kind of a trade will be developed there. 
Railroad and steamboat routes are projected and mines being opened, 
and more or less trade will be carried on between the British side and 
our own territory. 

The clerical force in this office certainly cannot be reduced without 
injury to the efficiency of the service, and at times, when there is a 
pressure of business, I have to call in assistance from some one or more 
of the outposts, which should be avoided. 

I would suggest that if the Department declines to allow me to ap¬ 
point an officer at Semiahmoq at once, I be allowed to transfer one of 
the officers at Seattle to that point. Also, that if an officer be tempo¬ 
rarily appointed at Sand Point, he be placed under the charge of the 
deputy collector at O’Sooyoos Lake, with instructions to report to him. 

If desired, I shall be pleased to enter more into detail as to the work¬ 
ing of the force in this district, and to offer further suggestions. This 
is a new country, rapidly developing, and destined to become one of the 
most important of all the customs districts. The establishment of steam¬ 
ship lines between Puget Sound and China and Japan is already under 
consideration, and will no doubt be carried out. It is also more than 
probable that lines will be established between the terminus of the 
Canadian Pacific Railroad and China and Japan. 

Whatever increase of force, if any, be allowed this district, I feel 
assured that the rate per cent, of the cost of collecting the revenue will 
not be increased beyond the rate of the last fiscal year, viz., 38 per cent., 
because of the rapid gain in the business of the district, and consequent 
gain in receipts, and it is more than probable that it will even be reduced. 

I enclose a communication just received from Semiahmoo, relative to 
smuggling. 

I have the honor to remain, very respectfully, 

A. W. BASH, 

Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 


Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, B. C. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


243 


No. 117. 

Custom-House, Providence, B. I.. 

Collector'’ s Office, April 4, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter of 
the 1st instant, requesting me to report to what extent the force em¬ 
ployed in this district can be reduced, and whether the methods of doing 
business can be simplified, &c. 

In reply, I have to state, after careful consideration, that, as there has 
been a considerable falling off in the business here, the services of the 
following officers can be dispensed with without detriment to the public 
service so long as the depression continues, viz: One deputy collector, 
at $2,000 per annum; one inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer, 
at $3.50 per diem; two inspectors, at $3 per diem. 

I have also to state that I do not at this time see how the methods 
of doing business here can be simplified in such a manner as to improve 
the efficiency of the service or curtail the expenses. I consider it to be 
my duty, however, to call your attention to the imperfect protection 
from smuggling afforded by the present system of boarding and inspect¬ 
ing vessels from foreign ports now in operation in this district. 

The.boarding-station is located at Pawtuxet, about five miles below 
the city, but vessels enter the bay either by the east passage, passing 
Newport, or by the west passage, at Dutch Island, about thirty miles 
from this port. 

No officer is placed on board until they arrive at or near Pawtuxet, 
consequently there is no protection whatever for some twenty-five miles, 
and nothing to prevent the landing of smuggled goods at any point for 
the whole distance. 

The boarding officer is placed on board at or near Pawtuxet, and re¬ 
mains on board until relieved by the discharging officer, who superin¬ 
tends the discharging of the cargo in the daytime, but leaves at night, 
and as there are no night-inspectors here, there is no protection from 
smuggling during the night. 

I see no way to secure perfect protection unless an officer is placed on 
board of every vessel from a foreign port as soon as she enters the bay, 
and remains on board until the vessel arrives at her dock and he is re¬ 
lieved by the discharging officer, who is, in turn, relieved at night by 
a night-inspector. 

Whether any plan can be adopted by which perfect protection from 
smuggling can be afforded, as indicated above, without incurring so 
great an expense as to render it impracticable, the Department can 
determine much better than myself. 

If, however, such a system could be carried into effect, the boarding- 
officers and boatmen at Newport,and Bristol, as well as at this port, 
might be dispensed with. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CYBUS HAEBIS, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). < 7 . 


244 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 118. 

Custom-House, Richmond, Va., 

Collector’s Office , April 9, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to Department circular letter under date of April 1, 
1885, in which, as collector of this port, I am requested to report to you 
at once what reduction can be made in the force employed under my 
direction, I have the honor to report that no further reduction in the 
number of officers assigned to duty in this district can well be made 
than was made in the early part of the present fiscal year, which was 
one permanent inspector and gauger, one special inspector, and one 
night-watchman dropped. This left on duty in this port one deputy, 
one clerk, two inspectors, one boatman, one janitor, one watchman, 
and one engineer, and at West Point, port of Richmond, one deputy. 
These officers are all on duty daily. The services of assistant engineer, 
allowed during the winter months, will be dispensed with on the 15th 
instant. The number of officers in this district, as you will readily see, 
is the minimum in each case, and could admit of no further reduction. 

The only suggestion that occurs to me which would improve the 
service and curtail expenses is the discontinuance of the practice of 
appointing special inspectors without the collector’s recommendation, 
and assigning them to districts where they have no other duty to per¬ 
form than to draw their pay at the end of each month , as was done in this 
district on several occasions. 

Very respectfully, 

OTIS H. RUSSELL, 

^Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , J). C. 


No. 119. 

Custom-House, Rochester, N. Y., 

Collector’s Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to Department letter of the 1st instant, requesting 
me to report as to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed in this 
district could be reduced without detriment to the public service, &c., 
I would respectfully state that in this district there is a regular annual 
force employed, with but little change from year to year, but at the 
opening of lake trade an additional force is appointed for the season of 
navigation, which usually commences during the month of April and 
closes in December. When appointed collector I retained, with but few 
exceptions, the force employed under my predecessor. I found them 
competent and attentive, most of them having occupied their positions a 
number of years. 

This district covers about sixty miles on the lake shore, extending 
south to the Pennsylvania line. It includes this office, the ports of 
Pultney ville, Charlotte, and Oak Orchard, on the lake, and Waterloo, 
N. Y., at which place there is established a private bonded warehouse 
for the storage of imported wool. A deputy collector, acting as store¬ 
keeper, is stationed at this point. Pultneyville and Oak Orchard are 
ports of entry, requiring a deputy collector at each place during the 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 245 


season of navigation. Charlotte is the principal lake port in the district, 
and the importations and exportations are large and increasing. There 
are two bonded elevators at this place, in which considerable grain is 
stored under warehouse bond, for withdrawal for consumption or trans¬ 
portation during the winter. The number of appointments for the 
season of navigation, excepting those named, are governed by the re¬ 
quirements of this port. 

I have not yet recommended these appointments, as I do not think 
trade on the lakes will commence before the 15th instant or the 1st of 
May, but shall endeavor to submit the names of persons who will meet 
your approval, and reduce the force to the actual requirements'of the 
service. 

Under existing laws and regulations, I do think the methods of doing- 
business in an office of this class, which is not extensive enough to be 
divided into departments, as larger offices are, can be simplified to any 
great extent. 

It has always been my aim to work in accordance with the laws and 
regulations, and at the same time cause the importer as little incon¬ 
venience as possible. 

Very respectfully, 

C. E. MORRIS, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector . 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 1). C. 


No. 120. 

Custom-House, Saco, Me., 
Collector’s Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your communication of the 1st instant, requesting 
a report as to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under 
my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service, I 
have to report that until within a few years the force employed under 
the collector of this port consisted of a deputy and two inspectors, but 
the force was reduced, and the services of the inspectors dispensed with, 
so that the extra force now under me is one deputy, at a salary of $450 
per annum. The cities of Saco and Biddeford contain a population of 
20,000 inhabitants, and, with the towns of Old Orchard and Scarboro 7 , 
are on the sea-coast and in this district. Two hundred and thirty 
merchant sailing-vessels arrived and departed from this port during the 
year ending June 80, 1884, a part of them foreign vessels engaged in 
trade between here and the British Provinces; and besides we have one 
passenger and two propellers, the passenger-steamer making regular 
trips in the summer season between Saco and Biddeford Pool. It is 
often necessary for an officer to proceed to different and remote parts of 
the district on official duty, and it is also necessary that one officer at 
least be in constant daily attendance at the custom-house during the 
hours required by the customs regulations for the purpose of receiving- 
entries of vessels, foreign and coastwise, to record bills of sale of ves¬ 
sels, to make marine documents on exchange or otherwise, and attend 
to such business as comes to the office. If the force were reduced it 
would be necessary to close the offi ce often during the hours of business, 
when it is absolutely necessary that an officer should be on duty there, 
and thus cause delays, perhaps, of clearance or entrance of vessels, 
which would be injurious to the public interests. 



246 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

For these and other reasons, I unhesitatingly report that, having only 
one subordinate, the force cannot be reduced further without serious 
injury and detriment to the public service. The expenses have been 
cut down within a few years so that they are now as follows: Pay of 
collector, $250 per annum; deputy, $450; rent, $100, (of customs 
office;) fuel, about $25 per annum—total, about $825. 

I cannot see how the expenses can be curtailed consistent with the 
interests of the service, and I cannot make any suggestions at this time 
whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved. My only sub¬ 
ordinate is a capable and efficient officer, and familiar with all the de¬ 
tails and work of the office and customs business generally. 

Very respectfully, 

GEORGE PARCHER, 

Collector. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


Vo. 121. 

Custom-House, Sag Harbor, V. Y., 

Collector’s Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your circular letter of the 1st instant, in regard to 
a reduction of the force employed under my direction, would say that 
it is impossible to discharge the duties appertaining to customs with a 
less number than I now have, as there are about two hundred and fifty 
vessels in the district. 

I do not see how the expenses can be curtailed, as our salaries are 
very small, and the other expenses, I think, are as small as can be made. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM LOWEV, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector. 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington. D. C. 


Vo. 122. 

Custom-House, Salem, Mass., 

Collector’s Office , June 18, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department letter of April 14, 1885, referred to me 
by my predecessor, requesting this office to report to the Department 
in writing, as soon as practicable, to what extent, in my opinion, the 
force employed under my direction can be reduced, &c., I have the 
honor to state that, in my opinion, the force cannot possibly be reduced 
at the present time without detriment to the public service, as the force 
consists only of six men, one of whom is constantly employed as deputy 
collector and weigher, ganger, and inspector, and one constantly em¬ 
ployed boarding vessels, leaving but three men to perform inspectors’ 
duty, both at Salem and Beverly; and I would recommend to the De¬ 
partment that the present force of this office be retained. 

Very respectfully, 

R. F. DODGE, 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Collector. 

Washington. D. C. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 247 
No. 123. 

Custom-House, San Diego, Cal., 

Collector's Office , April 25, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of April 1,1885, requesting me “to report 
to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under my direction 
can be reduced without detriment to the public service; whether the 
methods of doing business can be simplified, and to make such sugges¬ 
tions and recommendations as may occur to me ^hereby the efficiency 
of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed, 7 7 I have the 
honor to say: 

I. In regard to a reduction of force .—I do not see how any can be made 
without serious detriment to the public service. The force consists of 
only three persons, namely, the deputy collector and one inspector at 
San Diego, and a mounted inspector on the boundary-line between the 
United States and Mexico. The mounted inspector, with power of 
acting deputy collector, is stationed at the principal road-crossing, about 
fifteen miles from here, and he has about forty miles of the boundary- 
line to look after. It is his duty to count all the animals that cross, 
whether for export or import, to note their brands, and to inform the 
collector. He also collects duties on petty importations that otherwise 
would escape. 

The deputy collector and inspector at San Diego must necessarily act 
in many capacities and do much work, even when small collections are 
made. The transactions are numerous and of a varied character, many 
of them about articles of little value, or which prove to be free of duty, 
but requiring examination to establish their character, and consuming 
the time of the officer. San Diego has both overland and maritime 
trade. Persons are continually coming from the Mexican line with 
animals and other Mexicali products. They may elude the officer on 
the line, and cross at night, or at other points. It is an easy matter 
to smuggle cigars and supply our retail dealers. Single animals also 
may easily be imported without paying duty, the rider claiming the 
animal to be for his use on the journey, but leaving him here and re¬ 
turning to Mexico by some other conveyance. Animals imported in 
good faith are driven to a corral, where they are counted by the officer, 
examined as to condition, and appraised and held till duties are paid. 
So much for the overland business. San Diego being a seaport also, the 
duties of the officers are multiplied accordingly. From the entrance 
to the harbor, seven miles from the city, there is a stretch of twelve 
miles before we reach the head of navigation. Four miles distant, on 
one side of the bay, is the anchorage for Chinese junks, eighteen of which 
are engaged in fishing outside of the harbor, and are liable to alien ton¬ 
nage-tax every time they enter. These require constant watching. 
Four miles distant, on the other side of the bay, is National City, the 
depot of the California Southern Railroad Company, to which a large 
number of vessels engaged in the coasting trade go with lumber, coal, &c., 
some of these vessels sailing under register. These and the other coasters 
which discharge at San Diego must be looked after, to see that they are 
what they purport to be, and that they are truly engaged in the coasing 
trade alone. American vessels also, which sail under a fishing-license 
require watching and examination. They generally come from the coast 
of Lower California, Mexico, and, having a permit to touch and trade, 
not unfrequently bring dutiable articles. 


248 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Less than two subordinate permanent officers at San Diego could not 
perform aright all the duties of boarding, surveying, and measuring 
vessels, supervising the discharge of the small vessels, acting as general 
detectives, in regard to both overland and maritime trade, and at the 
same time attend to the office-work, keeping the records, writing offi¬ 
cial correspondence, giving information to inquirers, making out the 
weekly, monthly, and quarterly rej>orts, changing documents of vessels, 
entering and clearing vessels, receiving entries of merchandise, both 
free and dutiable, calculating duties, receiving entries for export, and 
supervising the exportation, &c., and this where nearly all the writing 
must be done by the officer, because there is no custom-house broker in 
the place, and there is ignorance of the proper forms, and often inability 
to write. 

When a large vessel arrives with dutiable cargo, requiring the services 
of an inspector for some time, I have been accustomed to nominate a 
temporary inspector, whose pay ceases with the discharge of the cargo. 

II. In regard to the methods of doing business. —I do not see how these 
can be simplified. 

III. Suggestions for increasing the efficiency of the service and curtailing 
expenses. —Uneer this head, I most respectfully refer to my letter of 
March 26, 1885, in regard to a revenue boat, and renew the suggestion 
previously made that the present heavy boat be sold and a light White¬ 
hall boat be substituted—a boat that one man can easily handle. By 
this change expenses will be curtailed, and at the same time the effi¬ 
ciency of the service promoted. My previous letters have shown that 
repairs to the present boat have been frequent and expensive, while the 
property is continually diminishing in value and is of little real utility 
for revenue service. The deputy collector, acting as boarding officer 
and surveyor, has no crew at his command, and he cannot well handle 
the present boat alone. To furnish a barge office and bargemen would 
add to the expense. As before stated, the eighteen junks which are 
engaged in fishing anchor four miles from the shore, which gives op¬ 
portunity to elude the officer and cheat the Government. They should 
pay an alien tonnage-tax of $1.03 per ton every time they enter the 
harbor. But they all look alike, and from a little distance it is impossible 
to distinguish one from the other. A loaded junk may come in at night 
and at the anchorage take the place of another that goes out the same 
night. The only way to know this is to visit the anchorage frequently 
in a light boat that can easily be handled by one person. The addi¬ 
tional tonnage-tax that would be collected would soon pay the cost of 
such boat. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. A. JOHNSON, 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Collector . 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 124. 

CUstom-House, Sandusky, Ohio, 

Collector's Office , April 9, 1885. 

Sir : As requested in your favor of the 1st instant, I beg to state that 
the force now employed in the customs service in this district is as 
follows: 

At the port of Sandusky: Collector, (salary, $1,000 and fees,) maxi- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 249 


mum compensation, $2,500 per annum; one deputy collector and in¬ 
spector, compensation $1,000 per annum. 

At the port of Huron: One deputy collector and inspector, compen¬ 
sation $300 per annum. 

At the port of Vermillion: One deputy collector and inspector, com¬ 
pensation 30 cents per day. 

At the port of Marblehead: One deputy collector and inspector, com¬ 
pensation 55 cents per day. 

At the port of Port Clinton: One deputy collector and inspector, com¬ 
pensation 55 cents per day. 

At the port of Kelley’s Island: One deputy collector and inspector, 
compensation $1.10 per day. 

At the port of Put in Bay: One deputy collector and inspector, com¬ 
pensation $1.10 per day. 

As all of these ports are on the shore of Lake Erie, but a few miles 
distant from the boundary-line between the United States and Canada, 
I am of the opinion that no reduction in the force now employed within 
this district can be made without detriment to the public service. The 
methods now employed in conducting the business of the district, both 
foreign and coastwise, are such as to cause the least inconvenience to 
the business community consistent with existing law, and at as small a 
cost to the Government as is possible, without impairing the efficiency 
of the service. 

Very respectfully, 

CLAEK RUDE, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , J>. C. 


No. 125. 

Custom-House, San Francisco, Cal., 

Collector’s Office , May 1 , 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of Department letter of 
1st ultimo, requesting me to report in writing as soon as practicable to 
what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under my direction can 
be reduced without detriment to the public service, &c. 

In reply, I beg to say that immediately upon receipt thereof, I caused 
an investigation to be inaugurated into the methods of transacting the 
business in the various divisions of this office, which has just been com¬ 
pleted, and I find that the business is well conducted with a limited 
number of employes, who devote their whole time to their duties during 
office-hours, and longer whenever the necessities of the service demand it. 

In the first division, comprising the entry of merchandise, entrance, 
clearance and enrolling of vessels, there can be no reduction of the force, 
but in the second or warehouse division, I am satisfied that while to do 
so would involve some extra work upon the assistant storekeepers and 
the ex-officio storekeeper of the port, the position of superintendent of 
warehouses, at $1,800 per annum, can be abolished, also that of watch¬ 
man No. 15, (old number,) at $900 per annum, without detriment to 
the service. 

As I do not wish, however, to dismiss the present superintendent from 
the service, I have in another letter submitted his nomination to a 
vacancy caused by the death of one of the employes. 



250 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Iii the third division no reduction can be made; and in the fourth, 
which embraces the preparation of the various accounts, liquidations, 
statistics, &c., I have already (on the 31st January last) submitted some 
suggestions in regard to simplifying the method of transacting the busi¬ 
ness, with a view of reducing the clerical labor , and I now forward a 
report from the auditor making recommendations as to further changes 
in the methods of rendering returns, which, it is thought, if adopted, 
will reduce the labor, and possibly enable the office to dispense with 
one clerk; but that cannot be definitely determined until it has been 
tried. 

In the cashier’s office all are employed daily during office-hours, and 
I am satisfied no reduction can be made there without detriment to the 
service; nor in the appraiser’s division, where I have recently found it 
necessary to extend the hours of labor in order to facilitate the transac¬ 
tions and insure prompt delivery to the importer of his examined pack¬ 
ages. 

In connection with the force employed under the supervision of the 
surveyor, embracing weighers, gaugers, inspectors, &c., I enclose here¬ 
with a report from him in detail of the workings of his branch.of the 
service, the conclusion arrived at being that, while he can manage to 
perform the work devolving upon his division with the existing force 
under the methods now in vogue, any reduction thereof would endanger 
the revenue. 

In general I desire to say that, from personal Observation since I 
assumed the duties of this office, I have become satisfied that there are 
no drones or sinecures; that the force, as a rule, renders as efficient 
service and performs as much labor during the same hours as is usual 
in private concerns of like nature; and, taking into consideration the 
extra labor devolved upon this office by reason of the handling of large 
quantities of “immediate-transportation” goods, free entries of tea and 
coffee, raw silk, &c., inspecting and stamping prepared opium, and the 
execution of the Chinese act, for which no corresponding credit appears 
in collections, the expenses of the office are less in proportion to the 
amount collected than at some of the eastern ports, such as Baltimore, 
Philadelphia, Boston, and New Orleans. 

So far as the administration of the office is concerned, the civil-service 
law and rules have been strictly observed, both in letter and in spirit. 
When a vacancy has occurred from any cause, I have made it a rule to 
promote in rotation from lower grades to the higher, and then fill the 
vacancy in the lowest grade from the “eligibles” certified to me by the 
local “board of examiners,” the latter being appointed for the pro¬ 
bationary period of six months. 

In making promotions I have selected those who had performed long 
and faithful service, where they possessed the requisite ability and fitness 
for the advanced position; and I have also at times transferred officers 
in the same grade where one possessed better qualifications to perform 
the duties than the other; and by pursuing this policy I feel assured 
that the efficiency of the service has been increased. 

I am, verv respectfullv, 

WM. H. SEARS, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 251 


No. 126. 


Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

Naval Office , April 15, 1885. 


Sir : In reply to your favor of the 1st, requesting this office to report 
in writing to what extent the force now employed can be reduced with¬ 
out detriment to the service, &c., I beg to state that, in my opinion, any 
reduction would result in inefficiency and delay in the discharge of the 
business with the public. There are no sinecures or supernumeraries 
in the office. 


The force now employed consists of one clerk who acts as messenger, 
and has charge of checking manifests and comparison of bills of lading ; 
two entry clerks, one of whom is about half the time employed on draw¬ 
back entries 5 two warehouse-entry clerks, who have no spare time; two 
liquidating clerks, who must quite frequently be assisted by other clerks 
of the office in order to keep the work up promptly; one invoice 
clerk, who compares and computes all invoices, and whose duties often 
employs him both day and evenings; one import clerk, who, in addi¬ 
tion to his duties at the desk, superintends the appraisal and collection 
of duties on passengers’ baggage at the wharf, in conjunction with a 
clerk from the collector’s office; one clerk who acts as cashier, and who, 
in addition to usual duties, assists in liquidation of drawback entries. 

There are times when some of the clerks are not busy, but it occurs 
only when there is a lull in business. At other times there is a rush, 
and with less force business would be delayed and the service made 
inefficient. Always having had a short force for the work, we have 
adopted the system of transferring clerks from one desk to another 
when work accumulates at one desk and is short at another. 

I do not know that I can suggest any improvement in the present 
methods of doing the business of the office. It has been simplified 
whenever the opportunity occurred, and now, I believe, is as complete 
and methodical as it can be made. 

With great respect, I am, yours, truly, 

B. J. WATSON, 

Naval Officer. 


Hon. Daniel Manning. 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 127. 

Custom-House, Savannah, Ga., 

Collector's Office, April 6 , 1885. 

Sir : Acknowledging receipt of your instructions to report in writ¬ 
ing upon the possible reduction of force in this custom-house, I have 
the honor to make the following statement: 

1 . The building is cared for by a janitor, at $700 a year, assisted by 
a laborer and fireman, at $360 per year; I have also in my office a 
messenger, at $720 a year. These three offices may be consolidated 
into two by making a u janitor and messenger,” at $800 per year, and 
an assistant to same, at $600 per year—total, $1,400, instead of $1,780 ; 
reduction, $380. 



252 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


2. We have at this port a wharf front of nearly three miles, which 
requires at least six night-inspectors for its proper protection. As we 
have but three night-inspectors, one of whom has care of the custom¬ 
house building at night, the protection of the wharves from smuggling 
is more pretence than reality. Temporary officers could be employed 
at night when needed for a vessel which could not be sealed, and two 
night-inspectors dispensed with, leaving one night-inspector for duty 
at the custom-house—a reduction of $1,460. 

3. There are three day-inspectors for the discharge of cargoes. One 
might be dispensed with May 1, and his place supplied early in the fall 
by a temporary—a reduction of, say, $547.50. 

As to the clerks, as I have but three, and this is the most important 
custom-house in the South, with the exception of New Orleans, I think 
it evident that the clerical force is not excessive. 

As the Department seems desirous of making some reductions, I re¬ 
spond to that desire with the above suggestions, recommending the 
change in the night-inspectors’ force, not because it is too large, but be¬ 
cause it is too small to be of any value. 

The business as conducted in this custom-house is perhaps as simple 
as it can be to present sufficient checks upon the officers handling the 
funds of the Government, and that it is sufficiently simple to be under¬ 
stood and carried out efficiently is evidenced by the fact that every 
special agent who has examined the office during my incumbency has 
reported it in first-class condition in every particular. 

I am, very respectfully, 

T. F. JOHNSON, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 128. 

Custom-House, St. Augustine, Fla., 

Collector'’s Office , April 12, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully replying to your communication of the 1st instant, 
I would say that, in my opinion, it is impossible to reduce the force 
employed in this district without being detrimental to the public service, 
and give the following reasons: 

This district has an extended coast-line of about two hundred miles, 
and is protected only by customs officers at either end, leaving a vacant 
and unprotected coast of over one hundred miles. 

It is true that there has been no transactions incurred at the Indian 
River office, where a deputy collector and one boatman are stationed, 
but we have no assurance that a valuable foreign cargo or cargoes may 
not at any moment demand the immediate attention and protection of 
customs officers in the interest of the Government by occasion of wrecks. 

The life-saving stations are unable to furnish any protection to the 
revenue, for, in the event of wrecks, their attention is necessarily given 
to the saving of life and rescue and care of passengers, if any. Conse- 
quenfly, it is very easy for wreckers to carry aw r ay dutiable merchan¬ 
dise, &c., whereas a good and efficient customs officer on the grounds 
would be a preventive and a satisfactory protection. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 253 


I always am in favor of a reduction in force and exjjenses where it is 
prudent, but in this case I deem it very unwise, and perhaps dangerous 
to the interests of the Government and to the proper protection of the 
revenue, to recommend any reduction in the force employed in this dis¬ 
trict. 

I am, yours, very respectfully, 

FRANCIS E. WITSELL, 

Collector'. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 129. 

Custom-House, St. Joseph, Mo., 

Surveyor’s Office, April 6 , 1885. 

Sir : Responding to your favor of the 1st instant, I have to answer 
that this port is now conducted upon the most economical basis possible 
to its growing importance, increased labors, and efficiency. 

The manifold duties now performed by myself and one deputy are 
impossible at less expense. Those natural duties are constantly in¬ 
creasing, and to be added to them soon are the work and responsibilities 
of the erection of the public building in this city. It was thought we 
must have additional help, but, cheerfully responding to the desire of 
the Department to economize, no such request shall be entered until 
forced by such excessive labors as will place it beyond all reason not to 
have it allowed. 

No simplification of methods are within the scope of our recommenda¬ 
tion. 

I am, very respectfully, 

JAMES HUNTER, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 130. 

Custom-House, St. Louis, Mo., 

Surveyor’s Office , April 15, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to Department’s circular dated April 1, 1885, re¬ 
questing me to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed 
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public 
service, I have the honor to state that, upon the receipt of the letter, I 
referred it to my special deputy, Mr. Herman Key; Mr. Nelson Young, 
deputy surveyor in charge of the marine division under me; to Mr. 
Louis Haynes, cashier; and also to Hon. L. G. Metcalf, appraiser, re¬ 
questing a written report to me from each of them upon the matter 
mentioned in said circular. ''Their reports are herewith enclosed. From 
these reports it will be seen that the force is as small as the best interest 
of the service will permit. It would appear wisest that the force should 
be sufficient to transact the public business with dispatch at all times, 




254 


REPORT OF 1 THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


although on some days a less number might do the work. I shall be 
glad, however, to conform to any suggestion in the way of economy. 

The late ruling in respect to pay of inspectors will work a slight de¬ 
crease in expenses. 

The business in this office is well systematized, and the expense ot 
collecting the revenue light, and my experience does not suggest any 
change of importance. 

Very respectfully, 

CHAS. M. WHITNEY. 

Surveyor of Customs. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


[Enclosure.] 

Custom-House, St. Louis, Mo., Surveyor’s Office, 

Marine Department, April 4, 1885. 

Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3d 
instant, requesting a report concerning the marine department of your office, with ref¬ 
erence to the reduction of force, without detriment to the service, simplification of 
business, efficiency of service, and curtailment of expenses. 

As the result of a very careful and conscientious consideration of every point sug¬ 
gested by you, I respectfully submit the following report : 

1. As to simplification: The present details of the work are the result and develop¬ 
ment of many years of continuous service, and, whilst of course subject to future 
changes as jnay he necessary, are at present satisfactory, as far as I can see. 

2. Curtailment of force and expenses, without detriment to the public service. The 
force of this department now is: Nelson Young, deputy in charge, entered the service 
in 1867 ; George Schuster, deputy and inspector, entered the service in 1869 ; Beverly 
A. Sturgeon, clerk, entered the service in 1882. 

In the fall of 1883, Inspector H. H. Gillum resigned, and his place has not been filled, 
thus showing a reduction in this department of one inspector, 81,460 per annum. 

The river frontage of this port proper is about ten miles; of this distance over six 
miles consist of paved wharf, where vessels arrive and make their departures. 

The port also embraces the Illinois river to Peoria, Ill., the Missouri river to Roche- 
port, the Mississippi to Louisiana, Mo., above, and Grand Tower, Ill., below. 

The enrolled tonnage is: Steam, 138 in number, of 55,025 tons; barge, &c., 132 
in number, of 113,498 tons—total, 270 vessels, aggregating 168,523 tons. Under act 
June 30, 1879, enrolment of barges is optional with owner. At this port the barge 
interest is so great and important that, in order to secure admeasurement and custom¬ 
house record, the owners insist on documenting. A low valuation of this tonnage, in 
round numbers, is: Steam, $2,500,000; barge, $1,000,000—total, $3,500,000. 

Through this department of your office is applied to this large and important in¬ 
terest the various requirements of the navigation and inspection laws in relation to the 
protection of life and property, admeasurement, enrolment and license, record of 
property interests, boarding of vessels and inspection of sailing-papers, inspection cer¬ 
tificates, license of officers, carriage of passengers, space for crew, and the multi¬ 
tudinous and important duties imposed by said acts on this department, the per¬ 
formance of some of these duties often requiring the presence of the officer at some 
remote point within the limits of this port. 

It should be stated as a matter of fact that since the above-mentioned reduction of 
the force of this department in 1883, occasions have arisen where the present force has 
proved barely sufficient, and this without regard to sickness or accident. 

In conclusion, permit me to state, in view of the foregoing facts and with a proper 
regard to the interests of the Government and the public in the enforcement of these 
important laws affecting life and property in relation to vessels, I see no room for a 
curtailment of force or expenses in this department. 

Very respectfully, 

NELSON YOUNG, 

Deputy Surveyor . 

Chas. M. Whitney, Esq., 

Surveyor of Customs, St. Louis, Mo. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


255 


Enclosure. ’ 


CU*tom-Hc*:se. St. Louis. Mo.. 

&mrrtyor* f/tfree. April 3. 1885. 

"IE: Replying to year request of this rffite. tor suggestions looking to the simplifica¬ 
tion or the work of thi- office. I have the honor to say that I have been greatly im¬ 
pressed with the importance in that direction of two changes from the present 
regulations, viz: 

1- T * €S* in the surveyor the authority to incur expenditures on account of expense 
in collecting revenue from customs for articles required not exceeding *10. or even. -ay. 
S5 in cost. 


- Authorize payment in ca.~h of vouchers not exceeding, say. *20 in amount. 

The first change would dispense with requisition- upon the Department for anthority 
to purchase needed articles of trifling cost, which requisitions are never refnsed ap¬ 
pro v-ih are: which, whiln they require comparatively little work in the individual offices 
m akin g them, must necessarily greatly swell the aggregate clerical labor to be performed 
in the various Departments at Washington. 

The second change would, in this office, dispense with four-firths of the checks drawn 
upon the assistant treasurer and. if the experience with disbursing officers in other 
ernes and places should be similar, would, in the aggregate, greatly reduce the clerical 
labor of the various sub-treasuries, as well as reduce the liability to clerical errors in 
drawing and paying checks. 

Very respectfully. 


L. HAYNES. 

Cashier. 


(has. M Whitvey. Esq.. 

Smrreyor. dire. 


Enclosure.] 

Ct sti>m-House. St. Louis. Mo.. 

Surveyor s Oifiee, April 11. 1 -So. 

Sue . As requested in your letter of 3d instant, to report about the working of this 
office, and to state whether any reduction in the present force of the employes could 
be made without detriment to the public service. I would very respectfully say that, 
after thoroughly considering the question and the business done in this office. I think 
it would be a very wrong policy and would seriously afreet the working of this office 
in reducing the forte, which only consists of one liquidating clerk, one warehouse clerk, 
one entry clerk, one asdstimr entry clerk, one statistical clerk one general clerk one 
weigher. aesKncr. ad pnyr matt asastant verier, measurer, and gauger, one chief 
inspector fiv T inspectors—a very small three of clerks regarding that the collections 
amount to over «xie million and a half dollars at this port per annum, and require a 
areat deal of clerical w. rk The books are kept in the best style, and the whole business 
inducted in a r r < d. wrstematieaL and most economical wav. 

Considering the situation of the 'lifibrent railroads over the river and on this side, 
the adequate force of inspectors 'V often put to the utmost to attend to their duties. 

Very respectfullv. 

HERMAN KEY. 

Special Deputy Collector. 

Chas. M. Whitxuy. Esq.. 

Sun-eyor >>/ Customs. St. Louis. 


Enclosure. 


Appraisee's Office. 

St. Louis. April 10. 1885. 

>is In reply to your communication of the 3d instant, requesting a report from me 
as to the practicability of reducing the force now employed in the appraiser's depart¬ 
ment. I have the honor to reply that I have roily considered the matter, and conclude 
that the rbree cannot be reduced without injury to the service. The force now employed 
in the appraiser’s department is as tallow- : Charles Mesnier. examiner, salary $1,4(>0 






256 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


per year; R. L. Hines, clerk, salary $900 per year; Frank Heer, opener and packer, $60 
per month ; and two laborers, who also perform messenger service, each $40 per month. 

The above is the entire force in this department, and is a small one when it is con¬ 
sidered that this force not only perform the service connected with the appraiser’s store, 
hut also receive and discharge all merchandise in the bonded warehouse, and perform 
the work of keeping it in order. Since the bonded warehouse was combined with the 
appraiser’s store, the first of last December, nothing has been paid by the Government 
for extra labor, the force in the appraiser’s store doing the work for both; when hereto¬ 
fore they were employed exclusively in the appraiser’s store. 

With reference to R. L. Rhines as a clerk in the office, I will say that, while his 
salary is small, he is a very valuable man, whose services are required as an assistant 
to the examiner and in attending to outside work, and, by his faithful and industrious 
habits, greatly relieves the force in the appraiser’s store. The work in the office is 
thoroughly systematized, and without his services I do not see how it could be kept 
up to the standard. I am aware of a falling off in custom-house receipts in the last 
year, but by reference to our record I find that, while invoices have been smaller in 
value, the number passing through the appraiser’s office has been maintained up to 
January, 1885, and when it is considered that a small invoice involves nearly as much 
labor as a large one, the work in this department is not materially affected. 

Very respectfully, 

L. S. METCALFE, 

• TJ. S. Appraiser. 

Major C. M. Whitney, 

Surveyor of Customs , St. Louis , Mo. 


No. 131. 

Custom-House, St. Mary’s, Ga., 

Collectors Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department circular of April 1, relative to reduction 
of expenses in this district, I have the honor to state that the principal 
customs business arises from the export of lumber manufactured on the 
St. Mary’s and St. Ilia rivers. There are four lumber-mills on the St. 
Ilia river, from twenty-two to twenty-six miles from this office, which 
have to be looked after. The customs money has to be taken to Fer- 
nandina, Fla., to forward by express for deposit. The force now 
employed here consists of a collector, deputy, and one boatman, and, in 
my opinion, this force cannot be reduced and the efficiency of the ser¬ 
vice preserved. 

Very respectfully, 

JOSEPH SHEPARD, 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Collector. 

Washington, D. C. 


No. 132. 

Custom-House, St. Vincent, Minn., 

Collectors Office, May 23, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to Department circular letter under date of April 1 
last, relative to reduction in force, simplification in business, and cur¬ 
tailment of expenses within this customs district, I have the honor to 
state that at all the sub-ports, with the exception of St. Paul, but one 
person is employed. Within the last two years the force at the chief 
port has been reduced from eleven to eight, which latter number em- 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 257 


braces the mounted inspector, inspector on the train, and the inspector 
superintending the transfer of freight from cars to boats on the Red 
river and the village inspection, leaving but five at the office for night 
service, the local business by railway, and the making and compiling 
of reports and keeping of records for the entire district. Further re¬ 
duction could not be made without detriment to the efficiency of the 
service. The work has been so systematized that no time is lost in 
useless or accumulative labor. Having from time to time reduced the 
force of the district to the lowest possible number compatible with the 
prompt and efficient discharge of the public business, I am unable to 
recommend further reduction. 

It is the constant desire of the collector to so manage the business of 
the district as to secure the greatest efficiency with the smallest expend¬ 
iture. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOSEPH BOOKW ALTER, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, Collector . 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 133. 

Custom-House, Shieldsboro’, Miss., 

Collectors Office , April 24, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, requesting me to re¬ 
port— 

1. “To what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under my 
direction, can be reduced without detriment to the public service. 

2. “Whether the methods of doing business can be simplified; and 

3. To make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to 
me, whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and the ex¬ 
penses curtailed. 7 9 

I have the honor to report that the force employed under my direction 
consists of four officers, each at a compensation of $3 per day—one 
special deputy collector and inspector of customs stationed at this office, 
two deputy collectors and inspectors at Pascagoula, Miss., fifty miles 
from this office, and one inspector at Ship Island, twenty-five or thirty 
miles distant. One of the inspectors at Pascagoula performs the duties 
of boarding officer at that port on all incoming and outgoing vessels, 
whilst the other is confined principally to office-work. Owing to the 
extent of the foreign lumber trade there, and the long distance from the 
shore (about nine miles) to the main anchorage-grounds of vessels, com¬ 
bined with the vigilance required to prevent and detect offences against 
the revenue laws, the present force employed cannot be reduced “with¬ 
out detriment to the public service.” The same facts apply to the case 
of the inspector at Ship Island, where the Gulf Quarantine hospital is 
located, under the supervision of the United States Marine-Hospital 
bureau, and whose services could not be dispensed with without detri¬ 
ment to the public service. 

Upon my special deputy at this office devolves the functional duties 
of collector during my absence, and who is mutually charged with my¬ 
self with all clerical and official labor, the making and transmission of 
reports and accounts to, and correspondence with, the Department at 
Washington. 

17 A 



258 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


I do not think that the methods of doing business in this district can 
be simplified, and can make no suggestions towards an improvement 
in the efficiency of the service and the curtailment of its expenses. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. G. HENDERSON, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , T>. C. 


No. 134. 

Custom-House, Sitka, Alaska, 

Collector’s Office , May 20, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to Department letter, April 1, 1885, re¬ 
questing me to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed 
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public 
service, &c., I have the honor to state that in this district the customs 
force is organized as follows: 

At Sitka there is one collector, with salary of $2,500, with fees and 
commissions; one special deputy collector, with salary of $1,200; one 
watchman employed on vessels, at $3 per day, when necessary, but not 
to exceed eight days in the month, and one boy, called a janitor, who 
makes fires and sweeps the office, at a salary of $6 per month. 

At Tongas is a deputy collector, with salary of $1,500 per annum; at 
Wrangel a deputy collector, at $1,500 per annum, and a watchman, at 
$3 per day, not to exceed six days in the month ; at Kodiak and Ouna- 
laska, a deputy collector, with salaries of $1,500 each. 

The salaries of $1,500 for the deputy collectors is in full for salary, 
fuel, furniture, and rent of office. 

At Juneau is one inspector, with salary of $3 per day; and on the 
mail-steamer, our only regular means of communication, is an inspector, 
with a salary of $3 per day. 

None of the deputy collectors can be removed without abolishing the 
offices. 

The watchmen are employed only when necessary to protect the rev¬ 
enue and prevent smuggling. 

The inspector at Juneau has but little to do, although constantly on 
duty, and I think his services can be dispensed with. Juneau is the 
headquarters of the mining interest in this district, and its future is not 
yet determined. If the mines in its vicinity are successful, Juneau will 
become the most important place in the district, and the service in that 
case will be greatly benefited by appointing a deputy collector for it, 
and placing the port on the same footing as Tongas, Wrangel, Kodiak, 
and Ounalaska. 

The small revenue force stationed in Alaska does not and cannot pre¬ 
vent smuggling in canoes from British Columbia, and a revenue-cutter 
ought to be permanently stationed in this district and employed in pa¬ 
trolling its waters. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

PETER FRENCH, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 259 


N o. 135. 

Custom-House, Stonington, Conn., 

Collector's Office, April 2, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your favor of April 1, relative to force employed in 
this district, I would respectfully state: The force in this district has 
been reduced from six to four in the past two years. As the ports of 
Westerly, Mystic, and Noank are in this district, four are as few as we 
can employ without detriment to the public service. 

As far as simplification of business is concerned, it would seem that 
the vast number of blanks to Bureau of Statistics marked “no transac¬ 
tions” could be dispensed with. 

Very respectfully, 

H. N. TRUMBULL, 

Collector. 

Hon. Secretary of Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 


No. 136. 

Custom-House, Suspension Bridge, N. Y., 

Collector's Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your communication of the 1st instant, asking a 
report as to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed in this 
district can be reduced without detriment to service, &c., I have to state : 
This district extends from the mouth of the Tonawanda creek, on the 
Niagara river, to the east bank of the Oak Orchard creek, on Lake On¬ 
tario, a distance of over seventy miles. Suspension Bridge is the port 
of entry where the principal business of the district is transacted. The 
outside ports or places where officers are stationed are Tonawanda, 
where a large lumber business is done, both foreign and coastwise; Port 
Day, where there is no business of importance, but considerable cross¬ 
ing is done in small boats to Chippewa, in Canada; Niagara Falls, 
where there is a ferry, and also a carriage-bridge across the river to 
Canada; Lewiston, the head of navigation on the river below the falls, 
seven miles from Lake Ontario, has a regular steamer line to Toronto, 
Canada; Youngstown, at the mouth of Niagara river, has a ferry to 
Canada and occasional steamers from Canada; Wilson is a regular lake 
harbor, and some considerable foreign and coastwise business; Olcott 
is a harbor, and has a light house; Oak Orchard, while actually in this 
district, is at its extreme east end, and for years the officer there has 
been under the direction of the collector of the district of Genesee, to 
whom he reports. 

There are employed in the collector’s office at this port one special 
deputy collector, salary $2,500 per annum, who has ‘charge of the cor¬ 
respondence, makes the collector’s accounts, and has a general charge 
of the business of the office; one deputy collector and clerk, at $1,500 
per annum; two deputy collectors and clerks, at $1,400 each; one 
deputy collector, at $1,200; one messenger, at $600. The duties of these 
officers are general, one acting as cashier, one as entry clerk, one as 
bond clerk, and one as liquidating clerk. They keep all records, pass 



260 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


entries, make abstracts and reports, &c. There are ten deputy col¬ 
lectors and inspectors, who attend on the arrival and departure of pas¬ 
senger-trains, make manifests on baggage in transit through Canada, 
make examination of passengers’ baggage, searching trains on the 
Canada side for examination of hand baggage and packages in the cars 
as trains cross into the United States. These officers each receive $3 
per diem, but the railway companies reimburse the United States for 
two-thirds the amount paid to three of them, who were appointed to 
superintend transfers of baggage in Canada for the especial accommo¬ 
dation of the railways. 

Eight officers are employed at the different freight-houses and yards 
of the railways, to inspect imports, seal cars, make manifests, &c. At 
each of these yards and freight-houses there is an officer in charge, who 
also acts as appraiser for the collector, there being no appraiser at this 
port. This officer at the New York Central receives $1,800 per annum, 
and the two others $4 per diem each. The five remaining officers re¬ 
ceive $3 per diem each. 

There are three inspectors stationed at the railway-bridges, for the 
examination of trains from Canada, seals, manifests, &c., and to keep 
reports of cars arriving, for use of the officers at the yards. Their com¬ 
pensation is $3 per diem each. 

Two deputy collectors and inspectors are stationed at the carriage- 
bridge from Canada, to receive reports of pedestrians and teams arriving. 
Compensation, $3 per diem each. 

There are two storekeepers, at $4 per diem each, paid by owners of 
the warehouses, and one female examiner, at $2 per diem. 

At this port there are two railway-bridges, across which trains arrive 
and depart continuously night and day, and one carriage-bridge, this 
and the carriage-bridge at Niagara Falls being the only ones across 
Niagara river. The officers here are required to be on duty night and 
day, a part working by day and a part at night, and changing about. 

At Tonawanda there have been two officers, one during the season of 
navigation only. At the ferry, Niagara Falls, one officer during season 
of navigation. This officer also looks after matters at Port Day. At 
the carriage-bridge, Niagara Falls, two officers, on duty night and day. 
At Lewiston, two officers, one during theseason of navigation. At 
Youngstown, one officer. At Wilson, one officer during the season of 
navigation. At Olcott, one officer, during season of navigation. These 
officers are all paid $3 per diem, and their duty is largely preventive 
along the Niagara river and Lake Ontario. 

At Collingwood and Midland, in Canada, officers are stationed during 
the season of navigation, in connection with the transit business over 
the Northern Bailway and the Grand Trunk Bailway, and paid by these 
companies. 

I have endeavored, in as concise a manner as possible, to state the 
condition of affairs in this district as to the work performed, the dis¬ 
position and compensation of the force. 

I am unable to *see how the manner of transacting business can be 
simplified or the number of employes reduced, though as yet I have not 
renominated officers at Tonawanda and Lewiston for the present season 
of navigation, and shall not do so unless I find their services cannot be 
dispensed with. 

The female examiner, who is paid $2 per diem, may be discontinued if 
I be authorized to enter into an arrangement with her or some other 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 261 


suitable person, to be paid at the rate of $2 per diem when actually em¬ 
ployed. The employment of such an examiner continuously does not 
now seem to be necessary. 

The compensation paid to officers at this port, with one exception, 
seems to me reasonable only, when the hours of service and night-work 
are considered; but, in my opinion, the compensation paid to officers at 
the out-ports, where the cost of living is not so much and the duty less 
onerous, may very properly be reduced. I therefore recommend that the 
compensation of M. A. Hull, deputy collector and inspector, employed 
at the New York Central freight-house, be fixed at $4 per diem instead 
of $1,800 per annum, which will be the same compensation paid to other 
officers performing like servicej that the compensation of Frederick 
Sommers, deputy collector and inspector at Tonawando; Joseph E. 
Whitman, deputy collector and inspector at Lewiston; and A. Judson 
Eaton, deputy collector and inspector at Youngstown, be each fixed at 
$2.50 per diem instead of $3 per diem ; and that the compensation of 
the officers nominated in my communication of March 26, 1885, viz., 
Ralph Stock well, Henry Kenney, and John Chambers, nominated for 
the season of navigation at Wilson, Olcott, and the ferry at Niagara 
Falls, respectively, be fixed at $2.50 per diem. 

I also recommend that I be authorized to discontinue the continuous 
service of Mrs. Catherine Sweeney, female examiner, and to make the 
arrangement before mentioned. 

Very respectfully, 

BENJ. FLAGLER, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 137. 

Custom-House, Tappahannock, Va., 

Collectors Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, and in reply I 
have the honor to state that, in my opinion, the force employed under 
my direction (one deputy) cannot be reduced without detriment to the 
public service. The multifarious and unremitting labors ot the office 
are sufficient to engross the time and care of two men, with every regard 
to industry, efficiency, and dispatch. The business of this office is con¬ 
fined almost entirely to issuing documents to vessels, collecting hospital 
tax and fees, the admeasurement and inspection of vessels, the entrances 
and clearances of vessels, and making up weekly, monthly, and quar¬ 
terly returns to the Department; and I do not think the methods of 
doing business could, under the existing laws, be simplified, the efficiency 
of the service improved, or the expenses curtailed. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

BENJ. UPTON, Jr., 

Collector of Customs. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



262 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 138. 

Custom-House, Toledo, Ohio, 

Collector’s Office , April 10, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
April 1, (delivered in this office April 4,) asking me to report in 
writing to what extent the force employed under my direction can be 
reduced without detriment to the public service, &c. 

The permanent force employed in this (Miami) customs district con¬ 
sists of three men besides the collector, viz., one special deputy, one 
deputy, and one inspector. During the season of navigation, one deputy 
collector additional is employed in the night office. Prior to the begin¬ 
ning of my term of office, one outside inspector was dropped from the 
rolls. Under the existing arrangement, the deputy collector performs 
the duties of cashier; the inspector has charge of the statistical work, 
and is on duty on the docks and at the depots, (of which there are now 
five in the different parts of the city,) when circumstances permit; and 
the work of the clearance desk during navigation is divided between 
the different members of the force. 

Since our force was diminished as stated, two new railway depots have 
been established in Toledo, and the importations under the immediate- 
transportation act have materially increased, requiring additional out¬ 
side work. To secure the proper observance of the steamboat and in¬ 
spection laws, it would seem really desirable that we should devote more 
time to outside inspection than we are able to do with our present force. 

i beg leave, in this connection, to call attention to the report of the 
supervising special agent for the fiscal year ending June 30,1884, show¬ 
ing that the expense in this district for collecting the revenue for the 
period named was only 12 cents on each dollar, far below the average. 

Very respectfully, 

JOSEPH B. BATTELLE, 

Collector. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 139. 

Custom-House, Tuckerton, N. J., 

Collector’s Office, April 3, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department cir¬ 
cular letter dated April 1, 1885, in which I am requested to “report in 
writing, as soon as practicable, to what extent, in my opinion, the force 
employed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the 
public service, whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, 
and, in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may 
occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and 
the expenses curtailed,” and in reply thereto, I would respectfully 
state that no reduction can be made in the force employed in this dis¬ 
trict without detriment to the public service. 

We have a sea-coast of about twenty-five miles in length, with an inlet 
at either end, both of which have to be looked after, and during most 
of the year only one inspector is employed in the district, but during 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


263 


the winter and early spring months it has been deemed advisable to 
have two inspectors of customs—one at Tuckerton and the other at 
Barnegat. The term of the Barnegat inspector ended on March 31,1885, 
and the force now stands as follows: One collector, one deputy collector, 
and one inspector of customs, and, in my opinion, any father reduction 
would be detrimental to the public service, and greatly impair its 
efficiency. 


Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEORGE W. MATHIS, 

Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , />. C. 


No. 140. 


Custom-House, Trenton, X. J., 

Collectors Office , April 4, 1845. 

Sir : In your printed instructions of March 31, 1885, requesting me 
to report in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the force in my office 
employed could be reduced without detriment to the public service, I 
would say that I have no force to dispense with in my office, as I attend 
to the duties of my office myself. 

On the 2d day of February last, I nominated Edwin F. Lenox, my 
son, for a special deputy, in accordance with the enclosed blank forms 
sent to me, and one copy of which I returned to the Department filled 
up. I have not yet received from your Department the approval of the 
nomination that I made and forwarded to your Department on the 2d 
day of February, 1885. As it is necessary that I should have a special 
deputy in case of sickness, I will be pleased to hear from you, if the 
nomination I made meets with approval. 

Very respectfully, 

HIRAM LEXOX, 

Collector. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 


Xo. 141. 

Custom-House, Vicksburg, Miss., 

Collectors Office , April 14, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to Department letter of 1st instant, I have to say that 
there is but one person receiving compensation in the customs service 
in the district of Vicksburg; therefore, the force cannot be reduced with¬ 
out abolishing the customs district. 

The collector receives a salary of $500 per annum and fees and com¬ 
missions, which in the future will aggregate about $550. The hospital 
dues having been abolished, he will receive no commissions, and his 
fees will not probably be more than $50 per year. Therefore, I do not 
think a competent collector could be secured for a smaller compensa¬ 
tion. The office-rent for custom-house is but $100 per annum, which 




264 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


I think is very reasonable, and probably as cheap as a good room for 
the purpose can be secured j therefore, 1 cannot recommend any curtail¬ 
ment of expenses. 

As for the methods of doing business, they need no simplification, if 
strict attention by a competent person is given to the duties of the 
office. 

Very respectfully, 

JOSEPH W. SHORT, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


m . 142. 

Custom-House, Waldoboro’, Me., 

Collector’s Offlce, April 20, 1885. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of yonr letter of April 1, 
1885, requesting me to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force 
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public ser¬ 
vice, also suggestions as to the practicability of simplifying the methods 
of doing business, improving the efficiency of the service, and curtail¬ 
ing expenses. 

In answer to your request, I have to report that I have carefully con¬ 
sidered the matters referred to, taking pains to make special examination 
of the work and records of the several ports within the district. As a 
result, I am satisfied that no reduction of the force now employed is 
practicable, and I think a brief statement of the circumstances existing 
will make this apparent to yonr satisfaction. 

The Waldoboro 7 district embraces five ports—Waldoboro’, Damaris- 
cotta, Thomaston, St. George, and Rockland. Of these, the first four 
have one officer each, and Rockland has two. The accommodation of 
commerce requires the presence of one officer at least at each port of 
delivery, while the larger business at Rockland renders the services of 
two men absolutely indispensable. To make this obvious, I need only 
cite the fact that the latter is the home port of one hundred and eighty 
sail and steam vessels, mostly engaged in the coasting and fishing trade, 
and that during the calendar year 1884 there were 329 foreign entries and 
347 foreign clearances at this port. The amount of labor involved in 
the documenting and recording this large domestic fleet, boarding, and 
transacting other business for the foreign commerce, with making all 
the official reports, weekly, monthly, and quarterly, as required, will 
be sufficiently understood to demonstrate the need of the force now 
employed. 

The salaries of the various subordinate officers remain as they existed 
at the death of Mr. Kennedy, my predecessor as collector. While but 
slight reduction is practicable, there is a disparity existing in the com¬ 
pensation allowed to some of the persons employed, not based upon any 
just grounds that I can discover, certainly not upon the character or the 
amount of service performed. 

I think the compensation of Mr. Bliss, special deputy at Waldoboro’, 
and that of Mr. Crocker, the very competent and efficient deputy at 
Rockland, are but just, and should remain as they are. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 265 


As the business of Damariscotta and that of Thomaston are very simi¬ 
lar in character, the latter equalling or exceeding the former, I respect¬ 
fully recommend that the compensation of Artell A. Hall, deputy 
collector, &c., at Damariscotta, be reduced from $3 to $2 per day, and 
that the compensation of James H. Hewett, deputy collector at Thomas¬ 
ton, be made $2 per day instead of $1.90 per day, as it now is. 

While the record and other office-work of deputy collector at St. 
George is about the same as that of Damariscotta, its position as a harbor 
of common resort on the coast renders the service somewhat more labo¬ 
rious, and vigilant attendance more necessary. He is also at times 
obliged to visit Port Clide and other points, requiring a horse, so that 
his pay cannot be considered excessive. 

Assuming that you would as readily authorize an increase as require 
a reduction of compensation, in case justice requires, I take the liberty 
to recommend that the compensation of Wyman W. Ulmer, deputy 
collector, &c., at Rockland, be increased from $2 to $2.25 per day, a 
large increase in the foreign commerce at that port having added much 
laborious work to his duties as boarding officer. He is a faithful man, 
attentive to his work, which engrosses his entire time, and I should 
consider such increase well earned and as meagre justice. 

While the laws and the regulations of the Department maintain the 
existing system of supervising and accounting for vessels and commerce, 
I am unable to perceive how the business of the customs districts can 
be much simplified. 

Very respectfully, 

EDWIN SPRAGUE, 

Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

„ Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , T>. C. 


No. 143. 

Custom-House, Wheeling, West Va., 

Surveyors Office , April 4, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor, in reply to the request contained in Depart¬ 
ment letter of the 1st instant, relative to reduction of the force em¬ 
ployed in this office, &c., to inform you that this office has only one 
clerk, salary $500 per annum, whose services, in my judgment, cannot 
be dispensed with. The salary is not excessive. 

This customs district extends from the Pennsylvania line to the Ken¬ 
tucky line on the Ohio river, including the Muskingum river, in Ohio, 
and the Kanawha, of this State. We have more steamers than the 
Cincinnati district, but less tonnage; but the business connected with 
these steamers is largely done by correspondence, as a larger majority 
of them never come to this place. 

There are two boards of local inspectors of steam-vessels—one situ¬ 
ated here, and one at Gallipolis, Ohio. The business of the latter 
office is all done by letter with this office, which makes a large amount 
of writing. The two boards are so situated that a considerable num¬ 
ber of steamers belonging to the Pittsburgh and Cincinnati offices, or 
districts, are inspected in this district, thus increasing the work of this 
office. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


266 


The clerk employed has had a vacation of ten days in two years, but 
employed a substitute at his own expense. 

Since my appointment, I have been off duty but one day, never 
having seen the time when I thought I could leave the business for a 
vacation. 

As custodian, I have only one janitor, who has not been absent a single 
day since his appointment, two and one-half years ago. The work, 
especially in the winter, is more than one man should do, and occasion¬ 
ally, when United States court meets, or when there have been heavy 
snows, I have asked for extra help for a few days, but have not thought 
there was work enough for two janitors so long as the night-clerk in the 
post office replenished the fire at night and swept the post office. 

I do not think of any suggestions that could improve the service at 
this point, or where expenses could be curtailed. 

Yerv respectfullv, 

A. H. BEACH, 
Surveyor of Customs. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 144. 

Custom-House, Wilmington, Cal., 

Collector's Office , April 27, 1885. 

Sir : As requested by your letter of the 1st instant, I have considered 
the subjects of “the possible reductions of the force employed under my 
direction ; whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and 
what changes, in my opinion, can be made whereby the efficiency of the 
service may be improved and the expenses curtailed . v 

This district (Wilmington, Cal.) was established by the act of June 
16, 1882, and by that act the officers to be appointed were named, as 
follows: 

A collector, who shall reside at Wilmington; a deputy collector, 
who shall reside at Wilmington; and one inspector, to be appointed by 
the collector, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, for 
each of the ports of Santa Barbara, San Buenaventura, and Hueneme.” 

In addition to the officers named in the act, one inspector, who acts 
as boarding officer and boatman, has been permanently employed at 
this port, under authority of^Department letter, February 12, 1883. 

In my opinion, the only reduction that can be made in the force 
without detriment to the public service could be made by having one 
inspector for the two ports of San Buenaventura and Hueneme. The 
commerce at the two ports is entirely domestic, and-as both are in the 
same county and only ten miles apart, one inspector could probably 
transact all necessary business. 

There is a probability that the construction of a railroad in Ventura 
county may require the importation of material from foreign ports 
hereafter, but it is not probable any such importations will be made 
within a year. 

The services of permanent inspectors at Santa Barbara, San Buena¬ 
ventura, and Hueneme are not required for the collection of the reve¬ 
nue, but are beneficial in protecting the revenue to a limited extent by 
the prevention of violations of the revenue laws. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 267 


The inspector at Santa Barbara, by special appointment, acts as dep¬ 
uty collector in the business connected with several small schooners 
that are engaged in the coasting trade between that port and the islands 
off the coast ot Santa Barbara county. I think the interests of the pub¬ 
lic service require an inspector at Santa Barbara. 

The foreign trade at this port, Wilmington, with collections of nearly 
$60,000 annually, is at present transacted with the ships at an outer 
anchorage, about two and one-half miles from the wharf. 

The necessity of boarding these ships on their arrival, and frequently 
visiting them while in port, requires the services of the one permanent 
inspector, who acts as boarding officer and boatman. 

The coast line of the district (the shortest distance from point to point) 
is two hundred and eighteen miles, and the total force of inspectors 
now employed is not excessive, on the theory that their services pre¬ 
vent violations of the revenue laws. 

The efficiency of the service may be improved in this district, in my 
opinion, by the appointment of three or four permanent inspectors of 
customs, to be paid in the same manner that temporary inspectors are 
paid, in accordance with section 2733 and section 2737, Revised Stat¬ 
utes of the United States, a per diem for each day he is actually em¬ 
ployed. 

The efficiency of the services of inspectors of customs would be in¬ 
creased by permanent appointments, and, in my opinion, an increase in 
their compensation from $3 to $4 per diem would secure the services of 
better men, who would remain in the service and become familiar with 
their duties. 

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883: 1 have only from No¬ 
vember 6, 1882, to June 30, 1883, to report as to compensation of in¬ 


spectors on vessels discharging cargoes from foreign ports— 

Total days’ employment of inspectors. 331 

Overtime, paid by consignees.. 59 

Net time, paid by Government... 272 

The last fiscal year, ending June 30, 1884, the discharging inspectors 
were employed as follows: 

Total days’ employment. 737 

Total days’ overtime. 94 

Net time, paid by Government, days... 643 


To increase the compensation of inspectors from $3 to $4 per diem 
would, on the basis of payments heretofore made, require from $600 to 
$650 annually, increased expenses, at this port. The United States 
Treasury Register, July 1, 1883, shows that inspectors at the ports 
of San Francisco, Cal., Portland, Oreg., and in the district of Port 
Townsend are paid $4 per diem. The inspectors at this port remain 
on board the ships at the outer anchorage day and night, and perform 
the duties of weighers as well as inspectors. I therefore think they 
should receive the same per diem paid at the other ports on the coast. 
The greatest number of days any inspector was employed at this port 
the last fiscal year was 147. Even with payment at the rate of $4 per 
diem, there is but moderate compensation for competent men. 








268 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The recommendations I have made to have the compensation of in¬ 
spectors increased are, in my opinion, more favorable for the efficiency 
of the service than any proposing to curtail expenses. 

Respectfully, yours, 

JOHN R. BRIERLY, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, • Collector . 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 145. 


Custom-House, Wilmington, Del., 

Collector's Office , April 7, 1885. 


Sm: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department let¬ 
ter of the 1 st instant, requesting me to report to what extent, in my 
opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced without 
detriment to the public service 5 whether the methods of doing business 
can be simplified, and in general to make such suggestions and recom¬ 
mendations as may occur to me, whereby the efficiency of the service 
may be improved and the expenses curtailed. In reply, I beg leave to 
state that the force at present employed in this district, including the 
collector, consists of eleven persons, as follows, viz: At Wilmington, 
the port of entry, one collector, one deputy collector, cashier and clerk, 
and one deputy collector, inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer; 
at New Castle, one deputy collector and inspector, who issues marine 
documents; at Seaford, one deputy collector, who issues marine doc¬ 
uments ; and at Lewes, one deputy collector and inspector, and five boat¬ 
men, who board and inspect inward foreign vessels arriving at the Del¬ 
aware breakwater, seal their hatches, certify their manifests in accord¬ 
ance with existing regulations, and perform such other duty as may be 
required and necessary for a proper protection of the revenue. 

After a careful consideration, I am of the opinion that the force as 
at present employed is as small as it is possible to be for a proper dis¬ 
charge of the duties required without impairing the efficiency of the 
service, and am therefore unable to recommend any reduction. 

The method of doing business is as simple as it is possible to be, and 
I am unable to make any suggestions whereby it could be made more so. 

I am, very respectfully, 

HENRY F. PICKELS, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 146. 

Custom-House, Wilmington, N. C., 

Collectors Office , April 8 , 1885. 

Sir : In response to Department letter of the 1st instant, in which an 
opinion is asked as to the practicability of a reduction in the force of 
employes and a simplifying of the methods of business, I have the honor 
to report as follows: 

There are at present the following officers at this port, to wit: One 
special deputy collector, one deputy collector and clerk, one clerk; three 
inspectors—two on duty in this city and one on duty as boarding officer 
at Smithville, N. C.; four boatmen—two here and two at Smithville. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 269 


In my opinion, a reduction can be made in the number of employes, 
without detriment to the service, by increasing the duties of those re¬ 
maining, and I respectfully recommend that the number of inspectors 
be two in the place of three, and that the services of Abram Hawkins, 
on duty as boarding officer at Smithville, be discontinued from the 30th 
instant, the duties to be performed by one of the remaining inspectors, 
as may be selected by this office. 

As there is only a limited amount of business at this port, no delay 
in its transaction occurs. I have therefore no recommendations to make 
as to changes in the methods now employed. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. J. PENNYPACKER, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 147. 

Custom-House, Wise asset, Me., 

Collector’s Office , April 6, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the circular let¬ 
ter of the Department of the 1st instant, and to say, in reply, that it is 
not practicable, in my opinion, to make any reduction in the force em¬ 
ployed under my direction without detriment to the service; nor can 
I make any recommendation whereby the efficiency of the service may 
be improved or the expenses curtailed, all possible reductions having 
been made after a recent careful examination under the direction of the 
late Secretary Folger. 

Yery respectfully, 

GEO. B. SAWYER, 

Collector . 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 



270 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

No. 148. 

Statement of Reductions effected in the Customs Service since May 1, 1885, 
(with the port and the number and designation of officers.) 

Amount per annum. 

San Francisco, Cal.: 

One auditor. $200 00 

Twenty-seven clerks. 19, 700 00 

Twenty-five inspectors. 27, 740 00 

One superintendent of warehouses. 1, 800 00 

Two examiners. 4, 000 00 

One doorkeeper. 1, 200 00 

One storekeeper. 200 00 

Three messengers. 420 00 

Seven watchmen. 2, 400 00 

Twenty-nine laborers.. 2,180 00 


Total. 59,840 00 


New Orleans, La.: 

One deputy collector. $3, 000 00 

One gauger. 1, 500 00 

Four clerks. 1,625 00 

Three boatmen . 1, 800 00 

Five night-inspectors. 3, 650 00 


Total. 11,575 00 


Philadelphia, Pa. : 

Four inspectors. $5, 475 00 

One night-watchman. 72 50 

One laborer. 700 00 


Total. 6,247 50 


Portland, Me. : 

One inspector. $1, 277 50 

One examiner. 1, 000 00 


Total... 2.277 50 


Boston, Mass. : 

Eight clerks.. . $5, 500 00 

Two weighers. 4, 000 00 

Eleven assistant weighers. 7,792 50 

Eight inspectors. 11,680 00 


Total. 28, 972 50 


Baltimore, Md. : 

Three clerks. $4, 600 00 

One assistant weigher. 1 200 00 

Three inspectors. 3,’ 832 50 

Two messengers. 1 900 00 

Two night-inspectors. 2. 190 00 

One foreman of laborers. 840 00 

One deputy collector. 800 00 

Two laborers. I 440 qq 


Total ... 16,802 50 


Burlington, Vt.: 

Two deputy collectors, inspectors, and clerks. $1 ? 905 00 




























































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 271 


Fall River, Mass.: 

One clerk..... 

New Bedford, Mass.: 

One clerk. 

Bristol, R. I.: 

One deputy collector and inspector. 

Providence, R. I.: 

One messenger, clerk, and sampler. 

One deputy collector. 

One inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer. 

One inspector and boarding officer. 

Two inspectors. 


Amount per annum. 

. $600 00 

. 100 00 

. 255 50 


$ 1,200 00 
2, 000 00 
1,277 50 
1, 095 00 
2,190 00 


Total 


7, 762 50 


New London, Conn.: 

One inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer, 


$1, 095 00 


Ogdensburg, N. Y.: 

Two deputy collectors and inspectors. 
Two inspectors. 


Total 


$2, 295 00 
2,190 00 


4, 485 00 


Plattsburg, N.Y.: 

Two deputy collectors and inspectors. $1,697 25 

Annapolis, Md.: 

One boatman. 180 00 


Georgetown, D. C.: 

One deputy collector and inspector. $915 00 

One inspector. 1, 095 00 


Total. 2, 010 00 


Alexandria, Ya.: 

One inspector. $1, 095 00 

New Berne, N. C.: 

One messenger. 180 00 


* Wilmington, N. C.: 

One inspector. $1,095 00 

One messenger. 600 00 


Total./. 1,695 00 


Charleston, S. C.: 

One clerk. $1, 500 00 

Two boatmen... 960 00 

One watchman. 600 00 


Total. 3, 060 00 


Savannah, Ga.: 

Two night-inspectors. $1,460 00 

Fernandina, Fla.: 

One inspector. 1, 095 00 


Mobile, Ala. : 

Two inspectors. $2,190 00 

One night-inspector.v. 730 00 

One boatman. 480 00 


Total. 3,400 00 































































272 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Amount per annum. 


Brashear, La. : 

One inspector. $1,095 00 


Brownsville, Tex. : 

One deputy collector and mounted inspector. $1, 460 00 

Two inspectors. 2,190 00 


Total. 3, 650 00 


Galveston, Tex. : 

One clerk. $1, 600 00 

One weigher, gauger, and measurer. 1, 800 00 

One mounted inspector.:. 1,460 00 

Four inspectors. 5, 037 00 

Three night-inspectors..... 3,285 00 


Total.. 13,182 00 


Indianola, Tex. : 

One deputy collector and inspector. $1, 277 50 


Cleveland, Ohio: 

Two deputy collectors and inspectors. $310 25 

One inspector. 1, 095 00 


Total. 1,405 25 


Cairo, Ill., (office abolished:) 

One surveyor. $800 00 

One deputy surveyor. 600 00 


Total. 1,400 00 


St. Louis, Mo.: 

One clerk. $900 00 

One inspector. 1, 460 00 

One sampler. . 912 50 


Total. 3,272 50 


Grand Haven, Mich.: 

One deputy collector and inspector. $602 25 

Port Huron, Mich.: 

Two deputy collectors and inspectors. 1 . 731 50 

Omaha, Nebr.: 

One deputy surveyor.l. 1, 095 00 

St. Vincent, Minn.: 

One deputy collector and inspector. 1 ? 095 00 

Eureka, Cal.: 

One inspector... 1,000 00 


Portland, Oreg.: 

Two inspectors. $2, 920 00 

One inspector and weigher. 1 400 00 

One clerk. l’ 450 00 

Two night-inspectors. 1,825 00 


Total... 7,655 00 


Grand total. $196,251 25 




























































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


273 


No. 149. 


September 30, 1885. 


List of Customs Districts examined by Special Agents , and reductions recommended, since 

May 1, 1885. 


Districts examined. 


By whom. 


Date. 


© • 
.QTJ 
© 
O O 
•*= P 

H 


Amount 

saved. 


Date of ref¬ 
erence to 
A p p o int- 
ment Div. 


Bristol and Warren, R. I. 

Fall River, Mass. 

Providence, R. I. 

Gloucester, Mass. 

New Bedford, Mass. 

Edgartown, Mass. 

Nantucket, Mass. 

Barnstable, Mass. 

Boston, Mass. 


Oswego, N. Y. 

Cape Vincent, N. Y. 

Champlain, N. Y. 

Burlington, Vt. 

Albany, N. Y. 

Alexandria, Ya. 

Georgetown, D. C. 

Little Egg Harbor, N. J 

Bridgeton, N. J. 

Burlington, N. J. 

Delaware, Del. 

Great Egg Harbor, N. J. 

Albemarle, N. C. 

Pamlico, N. C. 

Beaufort, N. C. 

Wilmington, N. C. 

Georgetown, S. C. 

Savannah, Ga. 

Charleston, S. C. 

Beaufort, S. C. 

Brunswick, Ga. 

St. Mary’s, Ga. 

Fernandina, Fla. 

St. John’s, Fla. 

St. Augustine, Fla. 

St. Mark’s, Fla. 

Key West, Fla. 

Pearl River, Miss. 

New Orleans, La. 

Mobile, Ala. 

Pensacola, Fla. 

Apalachicola, Fla. 

Vicksburg, Miss. 

Natchez, Miss. 

Teche, La. 

Indianola, Tex.. 

Corpus Christi, Tex. 

Galveston, Tex. 

Niagara, N. Y. 


Erie, Pa. 

Genesee, N..Y. 

Cuyahoga, N. Y. 

Superior, Mich. 

Sandusky, Ohio. 

Miami, Ohio. 

Huron, Mich. 

Yaquina, Oreg. 

Willamette, Oreg. 

Oregon, Oreg. 

Puget Sound, Wash. 
San Francisco, Cal... 
Oswegatchie, N. Y.... 
Evansville, Ind...<.... 

Paducah, Ky. 

Memphis, Tenn. 

Cairo, Ill. 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 


Bingham, N.W 
.do. 


.do. 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


Combs, Hinds, Lapp, and 
Bingham. 

Howell, W. T. 

Howell and Winslow. 

Winslow, Morris. 

.do. 

Ayer and Peck.. 

Chamberlin, S. E. 

Tingle and Tichenor. 

Adams, C. C. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.....clo. 

Hubbs, E. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

..do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do.. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do... 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

Nevin, D. A. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do.. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do.. 

.do. 

Barney, A. M. 

.do.. 

.do. 

Williams, Lapp, 
Phenix. 

Williams and Whitehead.. 

.do.:. 

.do. 

Spaulding, O. L. 

.do... 

.do. 

.do. 

Evans, J. F. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

Winslow, N.... 

Williams and Phenix 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


and 


July 1,1885 
June 29,1885 
Julv 1,1885 
July 6,1885 
July 10,1885 
July 28,1885 
July 31,1885 
Aug. 5,1885 
Sept. 12,1885 

July 17,1885 
Aug. 11,1885 
Aug. 5,1885 
Aug. 27,1885 
Sept. 7,1885 
July 7,1885 
June 2,1885 
Aug. 21,1885 
Aug. 28,1885 
Aug. 28,1885 
Sept. 2,1885 
Sept. 12,1885 
June 17,1885 
June 20,1885 
June 23,1885 
June 27,1885 
June 30,1885 
July 14,1885 
July 4,1885 
July 8,1885 
Julv 20,1885 
July 24,1885 
July 22,1885 
July 25,1885 
July 27,1885 
July 30,1885 
Aug. 8,1885 
June 22,1885 
June 12,1885 
June 24,1885 
June 26,1885 
July 2,1885 
July 11,1885 
July 11,1885 
July 6,1885 
July 10,1885 
July 20,1885 
Aug. 10,1885 
June 15,1885 

Aug. 15,1885 
Aug. 18,1885 
Sept. 12,1885 
June 23,1885 
June 30,1885 
Julv 9,1885 
July 25,1885 
June 13,1885 
June 17,1885 
June 30,1885 
June 25,1885 
Aug. 5,1885 
May 24,18.85 
May 24,1885 
May 23,1885 
May 26,1885 
May 28,1885 
May 28,1885 


3 

17 


(*) 

1 


(t) 

5 


0) 


7 

2 

1 

25 


8255 50 
560 00 
5,777 75 


July 9,1885 
July 3,1885 
July 11,1885 


100 00 


July 16,1885 
Aug. 6,1885 


1,153 50 
24,870 00 

6,485 00 


Aug. 6,1885 
Sept. 23 and 
24,1885. 
July 21,1885 


4,003 50 
17,482 50 


Aug. 12,1885 
Sept. 5,1885 


915 00 


July 10,1885 


1,050 00 
480 00 
1,800 00 


1.460 00 

2.460 00 


300 00 
432'50 


365 00 
1,095 00 


2,623 50 


547 50 


§422 50 
2,125 00 

2,190 00 
2,555 00 


1,358 55 
99 25 
450 00 
3,857 00 


July 3,1885 
June 29,1885 
Julv 2,1885 
July 8,1885 
July 21,1S85 
July 9,1885 


July 28,1885 
July'29,1885 


Aug. 11,1885 
July 12,1885 
Aug. 17,1885 
July 21,1885 


July 3,1885 
July 1,1885 
July 9,1885 
July 17,1885 


July 27,1885 
Aug. 1,1885 
Sept. 4,1885 
July 3,1885 


Sept. 

Sept. 


7.1885 

5.1885 


July 3,1885 
July 9,1885 
Julv 16,1885 
Aug. 12,1885 


9,155 00 July 2,1885 
2,910 00 July 23,1885 
4,147 50 ! July 14,1885 
54,213 00 ; Sept. 3,1885 


600 00 


June 10,1885 
July 3,1885 


*One increase, + During summer. J Transfer and consolidation with Vicksburg. § Increase 
| During winter. 

Total reduction of expenses recommended, $157,876.55. 

18 A 
























































































































































































274 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ANNUAL COST OF SPECIAL AGENTS’ AND 
“FRAUD” ROLL SERVICE. 


No. 1. 

Washington, D. 0., October 19, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of the 13th instant, we have the honor 
to submit the following information respecting the appointment, com¬ 
pensation, service, &c., of special agents of the Treasury in the customs 
service: 

First. Section 21 of the act of March 2,1799, (vol. 1, pp. 643, 644, Stat¬ 
utes at Large, sec. 2640, R. S.,) provided, amongst other things, that 
collectors, naval officers, and surveyors of customs should “ at all times 
submit their books, papers, and accounts to the inspection of such per¬ 
sons as may be appointed for that purpose.’ 7 From all we can gather, 
it was under this statute, and perhaps under the general authority con¬ 
ferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury by the act of September 2, 
1789, (chapter 12, section 2, volume 1, page 65, Statutes at Large, sec¬ 
tion 248, R. S.,) that persons were employed to act as special agents 
and assistant special agents in the customs service prior to the passage 
of the act of May 12, 1870. 

As affording light upon this subject, we quote from the reported pro¬ 
ceedings in the House of Representatives (vol. 90, part B, page 1496, 
Congressional Globe) pending consideration of the act last above named 
the following, viz: 

“ Treasury Department, February 12, 1870. 

‘ ‘ Sir : I herewith communicate, as far as seems to me compatible 
with the public interest, the information required by the following 
resolution of the House of Representatives, adopted on the 2d of Feb¬ 
ruary instant, namely: 

“‘In the House of Representatives, 

“ ‘February 2, 1870. 

‘ 4 4 On motion of Mr. Ferris, 

‘ ‘‘ Resolved , That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to furnish 
the House of Representatives with the names of all special agents and 
assistant special agents of the Treasury Department on the rolls of the 
Department on the 4th day of March, 1869 ; the compensation, mileage, 
and expenses paid to each since that date; also the names of such agents 
or assistant agents appointed since March 4, 1869; amount of com¬ 
pensation for salary, mileage, or expenses paid to each, including office- 
rent or any other expenses incurred by the Department for the use of 
such offices; when incurred; the place where such officer is now sta¬ 
tioned ; and the several appropriations from which such officers’ com¬ 
pensation, mileage, or other expenses on their account were and are 
severally paid. 

“‘Attest: “‘E. McPHERSON, 

“ ‘ Cleric . 7 

“On the 4th of March last, there were sixty-four special agents in the 
service of the Treasury Department, and fifteen special inspectors, or 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 275 


seventy-nine persons in all, whose business related to the customs 
revenue. 

“The daily compensation, in the aggregate, of the special agents was 
$371.10, and of the special inspectors $76.50, or $447.60 in all. As 
near as can be ascertained, the daily expenses, exclusive of the per diem, 
amounted to between $150 and $160, or an aggregate expense of rather 
more than $600 per day. 

“On the 1st of February instant, there were fifty-one special agents, 
at a daily cost of $335, and three special inspectors, at a cost of $15.30 
per day, or $350 in all. Adding to this sum the mileage and other ex¬ 
penses of the agents, amounting to about $150 daily, we have a total 
daily expense of rather more than $500. The total payments on that 
account from the 4th day of March, 1869, to the 1st day of February, 
1870, have been $171,976.47. 

“One of these agents has been paid from the appropriation for the 
collection of claims, two from the steamboat fund, and the remainder 
from the appropriation for collecting the revenue from customs. 

“The largest compensation is $5,000 per annum paid to one agent, 
the least is $4 per day paid to one agent. Three agents receive $10 
each, two receive $9 each, eight receive $8 each, seven receive $7 each 
per day, and the remainder receive $5 and $6 per day. 

“On the 4th of March, 1869, the average per diem was $5.79, and on 
the 1st of February it was $6.59, my object having been, as stated in 
my annual report, to reduce the number of men, and, by increasing the 
compensation, to secure the services of more competent persons. The 
amount of expenses incurred and claimed to be due for office-rent, fur¬ 
niture, &c., from the 4th of March, 1869, to 1st of February, 1870, was 
$4,390.54. Of this amount, $3,112.61 was incurred at the port of New 
York, and $1,277.93 at the port of Philadelphia. I omit in this report 
to give the names of the special agents, also the places where they are 
employed. Some of the persons employed are not knowfi to the public 
generally as revenue agents, and I believe that the service will be injured 
by disclosing their names. If, however, the House shall desire, the 
facts will at once be given. 

“The consideration of this resolution furnished me an opportunity 
to state to the House more fully than I have thought proper to do in 
my annual report the views I entertain in reference to this branch of 
the public service. 

“Special agents of the Treasury Department have been employed 
and recognized by law almost from the organization of the Government. 
The extension of the territory of the United States, the increase of its 
commerce, and the high rate of of duties, furnishing a temptation to 
smugglers, have rendered the services of special agents or inspectors of 
customs indispensable to the collection of the revenue. There can be 
no doubt, I think, that in the aggregate the result of their services is a 
saving, directly and indirectly, to the Treasury of many millions of 
dollars annually. 

“As stated in my annual report, I have made an effort to organize 
and localize these officers by dividing the country into sixteen districts, 
and assigned to each a superintendent, and in most cases one or more 
assistants. There are also in the service of the Department some agents 
who are not assigned to particular districts. It is, however, obvious 
that the system as it exists at present is open to abuse and is likely to 
occasion serious complaint. I take the liberty of suggesting in this 


276 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


connection that a law be passed limiting the number of special agents 
to be appointed, dividing them into three grades, specifying the number 
to be appointed in each grade, and giving to each office a fixed com¬ 
pensation computed by the day or by the year. 

“ Under the independent-treasury laws, the Secretary of the Treasury 
is authorized to appoint, and occasionally does appoint, special agents 
to examine the books and accounts of the assistant treasurers of the 
United States. 

“ There is also an agent of the Treasury Department whose duty it is 
to superintend the manufacture of blank note-paper, and to keep the 
accounts of the receipts of paper from the manufacturers and the de¬ 
livery of the same to the bank-note companies and the printing bureau 
of this Department, whose salary is paid from the loan funds. 

“I am, with great respect, 

“GEO. S. BOUT WELL, 

“Secretary of the Treasury. 

“Hon. James G. Blaine, 

“ Speaker of the House of Representatives , Washington , D. G. 

“Mr. Paine. I should like the chairman of the committee to explain 
to the House how this bill would change the law on the subject. 

“Mr. Poland. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ferriss) 
to give that explanation. 

“Mr. Ferriss. Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer the question of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin. The original bill was introduced by my¬ 
self. Before introducing the bill my attention had been called to the 
subject of the appointment of special agents by the allegation that they 
were appointed without authority of law. I entered upon an investi¬ 
gation of that question, and had some difficulty in ascertaining what I 
now believe to be the facts in regard to it. All the officers of the De¬ 
partment were very reticent when inquiry was made of them as to the 
appointment of these special agents, and by what authority they were 
appointed, but after a good deal of difficulty I learned the facts which 
I will state. In the law of 1799’, which organizes the customs depart¬ 
ment and provides for the appointment of collectors, naval officers, and 
surveyors, there is a clause which requires that the books, papers, and 
accounts of these officers shall be at all times open to the inspection of 
some person appointed for that purpose. It is under that clause, 
and the implied authority there given, that all of these officers now 
known as special agents of the Treasury Department are appointed. 
I learn that for many years the practice was to appoint, just what the law 
contemplated, some officer, clerk, or other employe of the custom-house 
to examine the books and papers and report to the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment. Such was the custom down to the time of the administration of 
the Treasury Department by the late Robert J. Walker. Under Mr. 
Walker a different system was adopted. Somebody thought that here 
were nice snug little berths for some favorites, and the two gentlemen 
from my own State, the State of New York, were appointed by Mr. 
Walker special agents of the Treasury Department, with salaries I think 
of eight dollars a day and travelling expenses. They travelled together. 
They travelled all over the country. They went in couples, and they 
took those routes where they could travel the fastest. They had mile¬ 
age allowed them, I believe, and they made out a bill against the Gov¬ 
ernment, which was allowed, amounting, in the aggregate, to over sev¬ 
enteen thousand dollars. Well, other persons discovered that here 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 277 


were nice berths for some favorites. More special agents were appointed 
under the implied authority, until one distinguished Senator from one 
of the Western States had, as I am credibly informed, secured the appoint¬ 
ment of seventeen persons as special agents in the Treasury Department. 
That thing has continued, with no authority of law for it whatever except 
the implied authority contained in the section I have referred to, until 
at the present time, or at the coming into office of the present Secretary 
of the Treasury, there was the number of special agents mentioned in 
his letter. In conyersation with the Secretary, he stated to me that 
there was an absolute necessity for these special agents. I protested 
against their being appointed without the authority of some law. He 
admitted the propriety of it, and desired that there might be a law au¬ 
thorizing and regulating their appointment. Nothing further was done 
until I introduced the original bill, which provides, not for the appoint¬ 
ment of any special agents, but for the prohibition of the employment 
under the section I have referred to of any special agents except those 
already in the employment of the Government, and those without any 
additional pay. The attention of the Secretary was called to it, and 
his views having been laid before the committee, I withdrew the bill 
and introduced the substitute, which the committee adopted and now 
report. The bill is based upon the assertion * or declaration, which we 
believe to be true, that there is a necessity for the appointment of such 
special agents. It will be perceived that this bill limits the pay of these 
special agents. As they are now employed, it is not limited at all. 
Some of them, I am informed, are paid $5,000 a year, with their trav¬ 
elling expenses; and I presume that their travelling expenses include 
fares over railroads where they ride on free passes.” 

In the further discussion of this bill, (vol. 1, part 4, pp. 2992, 2993,) 
Mr. Welcker said: 

“A section of the law of 1799 requires the books, papers, and ac¬ 
counts of these officers to be opened to inspection by some person ap¬ 
pointed for that purpose, and under that clause these appointments 
have all been made. It is a question for serious consideration whether 
that law authorizes the appointment of this class of agents at all; but 
it is a practice that has grown up in the Government, and perhaps it is 
now too late to say that there was no authority for the appointment of 
these agents.” 

The act of May 12, 1870, (vol. 16, page 122, Statutes at Large, sec¬ 
tions 2649, 2651, Revised Statutes,) was the -earliest statute which in 
express terms authorized and recognized the appointment of special 
agents of the Treasury to be employed in the customs service proper. 
This statute authorized the Secretary'of the Treasury “to appoint spe¬ 
cial agents, not exceeding fifty-three in number, for the purpose of mak¬ 
ing the examinations of the books, papers, and accounts of collectors 
and other officers of the customs required to be made pursuant to the 
provisions of the 21st section of An act to regulate the collection of 
duties on imports and tonnage,’ approved March 2, 1799, and to be 
employed generally, under the direction of said Secretary, in the pre¬ 
vention and detection of frauds on the customs revenue.” They were 
to receive salaries, viz: Two of them, $10 per day; seventeen, $8 per 
day; sixteen, $6 per day, and eighteen of them, $5 per day, and ex¬ 
penses necessarily and actually incurred in the discharge of their official 
duties; the same to be paid from the “appropriation to defray the 
expenses of collecting the revenue from customs.” 


278 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


By an act approved August 15, 1876, (ch. 287, vol. 19, page 152, 
Statutes at Large,) the number of such special agents was reduced to 
twenty, each to receive not exceeding $8 per day and actual travelling 
expenses when actually employed, &c. 

The act of June 19, 1878, (ch. 329, vol. 20, pp. 187-8, Statutes at 
Large,) authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to employ eight ad¬ 
ditional special agents in the customs service, at a compensation not 
exceeding $6 per day and actual travelling expenses when actually 
employed in the duties of such agency. This increase was authorized 
in accordance with the recommendation of Secretary Sherman in his 
annual report to Congress in 1877. (See page 38, Finance Report, 1877.) 

Second. Until the completion of inquiries now in progress, we shall 
be unable to report the number, compensation, &c., of special agents 
of the Treasurv in the customs service from July 1, 1860, to July 1, 
1869. 

As near as we have been able to ascertain, the greatest number of 
persons employed as special agents and assistant special agents of the 
Treasury in the customs service at any one time during the fiscal year 
ended June 30, 1870, was 53, and their total compensation was, viz: 
Salary, $120,618; expenses, $40,706.14—total, $161,324.14. 

The statement following shows the maximum number of special 
agents of the Department in the customs service, and their aggregate 
allowances for salary and expenses, during each of the fiscal years 
named: 


Year ended June 30— 

Number. 

Salary. 

Expenses. 

Total. 

1871. 

53 

$122,866 00 
121,195 00 
123,697 00 
124,699 00 
124,602 00 
123,633 00 

|43,964 42 
40, 262 56 
42,013 05 
49,538 93 
38,503 44 
28,689 12 

$166,830 42 
161,457 56 
165,710 05 
174,237 93 
163,105 44 
152,322 12 

1872. 

53 

1873. 

53 

1874. 

53 

1875. 

53 

1876 . 

53 



From July 1 to November 1, 1876, the maximum number of such 
agents employed at any time was 53, and from the latter date to July 
1, 1877, the highest number in service at any one time was 20. Their 
aggregate allowances for salary and expenses during that fiscal year 
were, viz: Salary, $75,945; expenses, $20,191.80—total, $96,136.80. 

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1878, the number of these 
agents in service was 20, and their aggregate compensation was, viz: 
Salary, $58,400; expenses, $18,124.86—total, $76,524.86. 

The following statement gives the maximum number of such agents 
employed, and the total amount paid them as salary and expenses, each 
fiscal year from July 1, 1878, to July 1, 1885, viz : 


Year ended June 30— 

Number. 

Salary. Expenses. 

Total. 

1879.. 

28 

$75,914 00 $21,957 88 

$97,871 88 

1880. 

28 

74,680 00 20,868 77 

95,548 77 

1881. 

28 

74,8.48 00 | 17,863 72 

92,701 72 

1882. 

28 

71,536 00 17,380 54 

88,916 54 


28 

73,338 00 15,590 52 

88,928 52 

1884. 

28 

75,120 00 15,213 50 

90,332 50 


28 

73,308 00 14,158 42 

87,466 42 





























REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 279 


Total salary and expenses from July 1, 1869, to July 1, 1885, 
$1,959,415.67. 

Third. The tabular statement herewith gives the name, date of ap¬ 
pointment, station or place of service, salary, expenses, and other al¬ 
lowances of each special agent of the Department in the customs service 
employed at any time during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1885. 

Fourth. Special agents of the Treasury in the customs service proper 
since 1860 have, so far as we can ascertain, been paid from the perma¬ 
nent appropriation for defraying the expenses of collecting the revenue 
from customs. The act of May 12, 1870, provided for their payment 
from this appropriation. 

At no time since 1860 has Congress made other specific provision for 
their payment. 

Fifth. It has not been usual since 1860 for special agents to report 
through the collectors of customs of the districts where employed; they 
have always reported direct to the Department. 

It has been usual, however, for them, and they are so required by the 
regulations, to report all matters relating to frauds and irregularities 
requiring immediate attention to the collectors of the districts where 
employed, as well as to the Department. 

Very respectfully, 

L. G. MARTIN, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Statement showing name , date of appointment, station , salary , expenses , and oZAer allowances of special agents during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1885. 


280 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


3 

ft 


O 

ft 

© 

C 

g 

3 

a. 


3 

O 



-Id lO - 


co . 




© 3 3 © 
*3 beoesn 
3 3 3 3 

3 3 3 3 

oooo 




CO co 

r. © rj 

'3 *2 © 

t. C S- 

3 -g 3 

hh y k-< 

3 3 3 

ooo 


5*3 

b£3 g 

cog, 

S § 2 
ft's I 

« b*3 

3^.2 

a Ss 

0 §o3.g 
a; 3 3 « 

8315 


i,® 
:ft 
: 

: © 

: 3 
: S> 

j§P 


3 3 


ft 

© 

§ 

§P 


_3 

-2 © 

3 

s 

3ft X 

2 §*• 
;M g o | 


: 3 ° f. o 
I'd ©5 a> 

1 . M)Z hr 


© £ © • 
m!z; ocg 

o3 ^ > O 
£ c 3 <3 *g 
fl)j5 Or; ^ 


O 3^ S W 

O hH W 


'3b § 
o > 

oi 3 

bco 

3 ©T 
33.0 


© O 

OS 


© 


45 5 
*» 3 

u u 
3fe 
O 

« 3 

S 

O CO 
45 if 
60 45 
3 J3 
35 93 
"ft 


.22 >> 
'd 3 
>>■3 
©_ 
S oi 
©ftt 

So© 

3 * 
•S'd 

&§ 

“3 


33T 
O 45 
<3-3 # 
V. 3 yj 

os 15 

© ft o 

bePn Lh 

Jars 


cc 

pG co 

g fl 
§1 
io 

o * 


,45 


fa _ 

H 

O C 


f-Sfe 

< 2 oS 


x 

3 73 
ft 3 


3 0 ® 

©g^s 

& s 21 
3 c g 3 

-.'"a® 

.3 w -o 

ISl* 

® >5 

O bl a? 

©i . © o 
. =3 *(§ 
ft .. 

45 3 ' 

S'S'S’T 

•ffgls 


II “ 

A? -M 
oSh 

& 3.0.2' 
gf® ftS 


: aft 


_ 0 
3 3 -ft x 
j 1) 2 S 

3 2.3 50 
0 ? ^ ^ ^ 
c*£ Acs 

■ <3 J g >> 
* fe - 3 

45 g-s-d 

m O 


a 

M 

W 


ns ^ ssnsass sss 

CO ^ O Ci ^ iOO^hOh^O ICCOQ OONON 

lO GO O Oh WCChl^NCh 1C <M 00 1C <M ^ 

WH CO r-HLO rH CO rPCO^ <Nt> NhOH 


^ i-l 


r-* o <n ic c<i a t* —* 


88 8 88 8888888 888 88888 8888 

O O (NO Q(NO C^OO^O (N ^ O O 

HM (N HN Ci CO CO l> CO ^ <N CO O <N O Cl O ^ (N O 00 1C <N 

OO O OO H O ^ ^ w C5 ICHO HOHOO riQOO 

cf (N <N rH*ef cTr-Tr-T<N cf rH of r-Tcf <N (N of <N rH of of r-TcT 


& 

05 


Ski 

ft h 
3'n 


ft' 

3^ 

a* 

A © 
ft^; 


O'- 1 . ^ 

5* ^ ^ 


^ M 
M c 

o5 
h s 

© 3 
^0 




o 

ko" 5 M 

§30 

III 

oft^; 


'd c 


■ W M 0 

; m c ® o 
f3-3 « n 


:.H ™ J 




0 3 '3 

:j|J<j 

*-• o 3 
ft 05 PQ m 


k. 3 

hft 

1^.3 

Eh % 

^-o © 

g.3 
© ©d5 

fi^ift 


ft 

3 


3^3 • - 
^bi 0 |g 
c 2 5 

|ft 3^^ 
0 03 d rToJ 

Slsl? 

u ft cc P 
o beg o © 
ftOwftn 


3 

ft 

.3 .N ^ 

'a< s . 
© s o © 

-g g SPS 

5 “ © 3 
ft 3 ft +3 

ftftO<J 




^3 

< 


ft 

x 

02 


3 3 


© 3 
3 0 
Q ft 


ip o 

I— t— 

oo oo 


00 0 


NHOIOWOIO 
oo oo oo oo oo S oo 


0 CO CO rH O 0010 M«HT)I CO SO VO 


1 -Scc 

xooo 


HCVl-HCO SDlO^lCO 


3 

3 

•“5 


ft 3 

© HH 
02 ^ 


i| 


ft 4 d © ©ft 4 ©ft 

ft 3 © © - © 4J 


cS c3 a 

M M JJ 1 


5"© 5 ®5 

SOpfirt 


ft d s£? 
©333 


ft 

© 

02 


3 

3 

fc 


o 

ft 

u 

c3 

s 


Oji n 


5C„ 


o 3 

X HH 

S ft 

3 © 
ft >» 


^T<! 

© r^ 

M © 
© 3 
3 t 


a'rf 


. ft; 


PIS 


M MM 


ft© ftft^ 

Jr ^ n cS - 

s^ 2 | 2 a 

U ft 3 3 3 > 58 
3 3 ft ft 0 3 > 

mmooaaw 


3 m hh 

>x . 

^ -M 
fton. 

«t^ft 
^33 
3 

00 w 


d s| 

^ft 


■< 
Oft 




W ' 

ft.S 
2 ► 


3 iO 

.■Cm • 

i 2 -0 

^ © I £ 

ft-gO § 

I ©!§ft 

002 05 Eh 


M 

◄ 

cT 

'be 

s 

H 


> 

d 


























































































Williams, W.H.I July 1 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


281 


8 ga¬ 


in £ 

ZS 

3 © 

■<02 

as 

oo 


O wT 

© i> 

3 3 

*» *» 

© 3 

MO 


I 

in 

S.j 
01 -w 

J 5 


o'5 

Si 

§ u 

r> ® 


w in 

i-2 


.S ~ c3 
O O £ 

a IS 

® off 

Vi , M U 

43 O C 0 

© 


-v.j- o) « 

a? 

£•££?“ ii 

3 " S -g'3 3 

^ frU-g-o-e 

C © - v 3 d 

O^m OO 


«5 

rj o 
0> O 

VS 


O eg 
©*8 
Da ° 
rr di 


2; : _, x 

§•§3-0 

„ *81 s 

0 0 0'S S*r 

>*^0-3 o 

> © £ £ £ 
S3 © © O i?24 
fco£!z; g 

>> >-> "© ^ 
3 3 3 3 23 & 
'd'd'd'd’o.g © 
3 3 3 3 

oooo£ 


8 3838 28283888 

<M QNNM COOl>t>Or^^-*< 

rH 0 X 1 Ch 


8888 88888888 
8888 8gggS88S 

05 t- CO t> KM'WHMt-lON 


6 {* 


O fc 


o 

3^3 

:jos 

■jfjgB 

£ §* § 
*3 si 

«3®4 

£0005 




>* 


!* 

£h' »>a 


fcfcg&P.g-s 

■a-g^-a^-a sa 

OOhOOOI.- 

^ g>< M^O'S 

© © • © "^ © © © 
££aQfc5!z;£Q 




5 if? II? U? if? if? if? 

BlUiSSo 


HH^H HMhChMhN 


> ^ u 

5 i 3 p, 

% ^ ^ *4 


0,3 iS33a3 
7h m s m v rr 
<! g g <i -< -< 


I : : -W J ; © IOh4 
: :*» :g B . cISQdo 
: O «J3 o M to • ©° 

M M ^ ^ . © 00 _M . r 

WC m .-KOJSo 011 

Stfl ffjftg'f*? 

WmS Somm 


o'© 3 

o M a 
PhCKCC 






















































282 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


\ 


No. 3. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. (7., November 2, 1885. 

Sir : In our report to you of the the 19th ultimo, we gave the follow¬ 
ing figures as showing the maximum number of special agents and 
assistant special agents of the Department in the customs service, and 
their compensation, during the fiscal year ending June 30. 1870, viz: 
Number, 53; salary, $120,618; expenses, $40,706.14—total, $161,324.14. 
These figures were gathered from certain rather imperfect and frag¬ 
mentary records kept by the Commissioner of Customs, under whose 
immediate direction such officers were during that period. 

We now find, from quite thorough inquiry in the appointment divis¬ 
ion and in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, that the figures 
above given should be increased to, as follows, viz: Number, 56; salary, 
$128,615; expenses, $46,776.49—total, $175,391.53. 

As the result of diligent search of the records of the appointment 
division, inquiry in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, and 
reference to such other data as was attainable on the subject, we present 
the following statement as showing the highest number of persons em¬ 
ployed at any one time as special agents and assistant special agents of 
the Treasury in the customs service, and amounts paid them as salary 
aiid expenses, during each of the fiscal years ended as follows, viz : 


Fiscal year ended June 30— 

Number. 

Salary. 

Expenses. 

Total. 

1861. 

8 

$14,346 00 
13,366 00 

$8,099 02 
10,248 56 
17,506 56 

$22,445 02 
23,614 56 
40,441 04 

87.358 65 

53.358 82 
75,955 74 

121,034 66 
169,141 29 
163,803 37 

1862. 

7 

1863. 

20 

22,934 48 
54,428 69 
28,845 20 
36,062 35 

1864. 

36 

32,929 96 
24,513 62 
39,893 39 

1865. 

26 

1866. 

25 

1867. 

42 

58,034 29 
90,971 83 
101,022 19 

63,000 37 
78,169 46 

1868 . 

49 

1869. 

58 

62,781 18 


Total. 




757,153 15 

1 




This statement includes eight special agents, (J. P. Tucker, W. G. 
Brownlow, B. F. Flanders, Thos. Heaton, E. L. Pierce, W. P. Mellen, 
T. H. Yeatman, and D. G. Barnitz,) serving for periods varying from 
three months to four years, who appear to have been appointed (in 
1863) under the acts of July 13, 1861; May 20, 1862; and March 12, 
1863, (pp. 255-8, 404,’5, and 820, ? 1, vol. 12, TJ. S. Statutes at Large.) 
It also includes two agents (P. F. Wilson and H. A.‘ Bisley) who are 
understood to have been appointed under the act of August 6, 1846, 
(sec. 11, p. 62, vol. 9, U. S. Statutes at Large,) and who, for a time at 
least, were paid from the appropriation for the collection of claims. 

It appears from their letters of appointment and instructions that 
four other agents, included in this statement, (Joseph Nimmo, Lorin 
Blodgett, J. D. Andrews, and J. W. Taylor,) were employed in col¬ 
lecting statistical information relating to foreign and domestic com¬ 
merce, &c., and that another (H. J. Anderson) was assigned to duty in 
connection with the quarantine and health laws. Another agent (J. F. 
Morse) was paid in part from the appropriation for the repairs and 
preservation of public buildings, and in part from the marine-hospital 





















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 283 

fund. It is probable he served in some wav in connection with those 
matters. 

All of these persons are included in the statement furnished you by 
the Commissioner of Customs. 

Ot the other agents included in the latter statement and in our own 
above, four (Montgomery Gibbs, W. B. Farwell, Louis W. Violleis, 
and E. H. Hudson) served either mainly or wholly in Europe, and one 
(Wm. Jones) in Cuba. As quite a number of these agents and assist¬ 
ant agents were at different times during the years 1863-’ 66, stationed 
at interior points in the Southern States, it is presumed their service 
related to cotton and other captured, abandoned, or confiscated property. 

Two of these agents were assigned to duty for a time at Quincy, Ill., 
and Michigan City, Ind., in charge of public property and customs 
records at those places. 

In so far as we can learn, the remainder of these special agents and 
assistant special agents served chiefly—either actually or ostensibly— 
in connection with the customs-revenue service in the States and Terri¬ 
tories of this country or in the adjacent foreign territory of Canada, 
New Brunswick, or in the British Possessions on our northern frontier. 

Whilst a considerable number were assigned to duty at the principal 
ports and in the more important collection districts, where they appear 
to have been actively and usefully employed, either in inquiring into 
the methods of conducting the customs business, the conduct of officers 
and employes, examining the accounts of the principal officers of customs, 
and attending generally to the detection and prevention of frauds upon 
the customs revenue, a large number were either stationed in the Ter¬ 
ritories of Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Washington, or Alaska, or were 
deployed along our northern, northeastern, or northwestern borders, 
apparently for the purpose of preventing smuggling. 

The compensation of these agents varied greatly. For example, two 
of them were salaried for a time at $5,000 per annum, whilst two 
others only received $1 per diem. A few had salaries ranging from 
$2,000 to $3,000 per annum, but generally their salaries were per diem, 
all the way from $1 to $10. All were allowed their actual expenses, or 
mileage in lieu thereof—chiefly the latter. You will observe that these 
“expenses’’ were very large as a rule, aggregating more than the sala¬ 
ries in 1866 and 1867, and being nearly equal thereto in other years. 
By referring to the statement furnished you by the Commissioner of 
Customs, you will see that such allowances to certain agents were uni¬ 
formly large, and in instances surprisingly so. For example, the 
amount paid Agent S. D. Jones as salary for sixteen months was $2,892, 
whilst he was allowed $13,036.06 as 11 expenses” for that period. The 
allowances to Agents Gibbs (abroad 1863 to 1869) and Farwell (abroad 
1865 to 1869) as expenses were also exceedingly generous, the former’s 
ranging from $2,800 to above $21,000, and the latter, s from $2,800 to 
near $10,000 annually, whilst Agent Violleis (who assisted them in the 
“wine cases”) was paid during the years 1868-’69, $14,640 as salary and 
expenses. 

The terms of service of the great majority of special agents and assist¬ 
ant special agents during this period (1860 to 1870) were comparatively 
brief. None served continuously throughout that period; a large num¬ 
ber only from one to two years, and a good many only for one to six 
months. In fact, a great many were appointed for terms of only thirty 
to sixty days. It is a significant fact that the letters of appointment of 


284 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

these short-term agents were usually addressed to them at Washington. 
Whatever may have been the motives prompting their appointment, it 
is probable the Government derived but little benefit from their service. 
In general sense the same remark would apply to those serving only 
from one to two years, for it is only in exceptional cases that agents 
without previous experience in the customs business have become really 
efficient within such periods. 

Neither our statement above nor that furnished you by the Commis¬ 
sioner of Customs includes a large number of persons who, during or 
immediately following the war of the rebellion, were appointed special 
agents of the Department to serve temporarily, either as collectors, 
naval officers, or as deputies, in the various customs collection districts 
of the South. Nor do these statements include a vast number of per¬ 
sons whose employment was authorized by the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury for service as “aids to the revenue” during the war of the rebel¬ 
lion at numerous points within or bordering upon the insurrectionary 
States, along the Canadian frontier and elsewhere, and whose salaries 
(ranging variously from $3 per week to $3 per diem) and expenses were 
paid by the local officers of customs in whose districts they were em¬ 
ployed. 

These statements do not include, either, three persons appointed in 
1869 as special Treasury agents to serve as collectors of customs at 
points in Alaska; nor one agent (W. D. Steward) appointed for duty 
in connection with the Marine-Hospital Service, and who was paid from 
that fund. As your instructions to us related only to special agents of 
the Treasury in the customs service, we have not included in our state¬ 
ment any special inspectors of customs, quite a number of whom are 
included in the statement you have from the Commissioner of Customs. 
As these officers’ salaries have been paid by the collectors or surveyors 
of customs in whose districts they have been assigned to duty, their ex¬ 
penses, however, have generally been paid by the Department. 

Some of the special agents having been paid at different times by col¬ 
lectors of customs, we are satisfied that some such payments do not ap¬ 
pear in the Commissioner of Customs’ statement, having escaped the 
search made in preparing the same. It is probable, also, that the names 
of some persons appointed and serving for short terms as agents during 
this period were not found either by the Commissioner or ourselves. 
We found in the records of the appointment division a number of ap^ 
pointments and removals of special agents and assistant special agents 
whose names do not appear in the Commissioner’s statement. At the 
same time, there are a number of names of such officers in that state¬ 
ment that we did not find in the records of the appointment division. 
We apprehend, however, that the number omitted is few, and the ag¬ 
gregate amount paid them not very large. 

Department clerks were in instances detailed for special service in 
connection with the customs revenue at some of the ports, their expenses 
being paid from the appropriation for defraying the expenses of col¬ 
lecting the revenue from customs. We have not included these in our 
statement. 

It appears from the records of the appointment division that quite a 
number of persons were appointed at different times within this pe¬ 
riod (1860 to 1870) as special agents of the Department without compen¬ 
sation. It is presumed these parties derived, or expected to derive, 
some benefit from their appointments, either from moieties in cases of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 285 


fines, penalties, or forfeitures, or in some other way. These appoint' 
ments are not included in our statement. 

Very respectfully, 

L. G. MARTIN, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, GEO. 0. TICHENOR, 

Secretary of the Treasury. Special Agents. 

No. 4. 

Treasury Department, 

Office of Commissioner of Customs, 
Washington City , D. 6'., October 26, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to your letter of October 15 instant, requesting “a 
full and accurate statement of all payments for salary and expenses to 
persons employed as special agents of the Treasury, in the customs ser¬ 
vice for each year from June 30, 1860, to July i, 1869, 7 ’ I have the 
honor to transmit the following statement: * 

With the meagre data at my command, I have endeavored to furnish 
you with the information you ask for, but am only able to present what 
I regard as an imcomplete report. 

This office was not furnished during the years covered by your letter 
of inquiry with a list of officers appointed or detailed for special service. 
Neither has there been any definite rule established for the payment of 
these employes, and, as a result, I find that their claims were settled 
either by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, the disbursing agent 
of the Department, or by some collector of customs. In a number of 
instances, one special agent paid several other agents assigned to his 
direction. 

To furnish the exact information asked for, it is necessary to have 
the date of the beginning and termination of each term of service of 
every person in relation to whom this information is required, and 
where and by whom they were paid. This I have been unable to pro¬ 
cure, and, therefore, submit this report as a result of the examination 
of two thousand and ninety-two accounts, which were withdrawn from 
the files of the office of the Register of the Treasury. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN S. McCALMONT, 

Commissioner of Customs. 

To the Honorable the Secretary of the Treasury. 

* Statement below marked No. 5. 


No. 5. 


Statement of Compensation and Expenses of Special Agents and Special Inspectors , United 
States Treasury, by fiscal years ended June 30, from July 1, 1860, to June 30, 1869. 


Year. 

Number. 

Compensa¬ 

tion. 

Expenses. 

Total. 

1861. 

14 

$14,346 00 
13,366 00 
23,099 48 
54,428 69 
28,845 20 
37,850 35 
65.751 83 

$8,099 02 
10,248 56 
17,722 18 
32,929 96 
24,513 62 
44,449 13 
72,579 06 
89,512 37 
67,573 93 

$22,445 02 
23,614 56 
40,821 66 

87.358 65 

54.358 82 
82,299 48 

138,330 89 
188,810 03 
174,915 22 

1862. 

10 

1863. 

22 

1864. 

46 

1865. 

41 

1866. ,. 

34 

1867... 

70 

1868. 

71 

99,297 66 
107,341 29 

1869..'. 

93 


Grand total. 


444,326 50 

367,627 83 

811,954 33 
























286 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 6. 


Statement of Compensation and Expenses of Special Agents United States Treasury , by fiscal 
years ended June 30, from July 1, 1869, to June 30, 1885. 


Year. 

Number. 

Salary. 

Expenses. 

Total. 

1870. 

53 

$120,618 13 
122,866 11 
121,195 00 
123,693 32 

$40,706 14 
43,964 42 

$161,324 27 
166,830 53 
161,457 56 
165,706 37 

1871. 

53 

1872. 

S3 

40,262 56 

] 873. 

53 

42,013 05 
49,538 93 
38,503 44 
28,689 12 

1874. 

53 

124,699 00 
124,602 00 
123,633 00 
75,945 00 
58,400 00 
75,914 00 

174,237 93 
163,105 44 
152,322 12 
96,136 80 

1875 . 

53 

1876. 

53 

1877... ..... 

53 

20,191 80 

1878. 

20 

18,124 86 
21, 957 88 

76,524 86 
97,871 88 

1879. 

28 

1880. 

28 

74,680 00 

20,868 77 
17,863 72 

95,548 77 
92,701 72 

1881. 

28 

74,838 00 
71,536 00 

1882. 

28 

17,380 54 

88,916 54 
88,928 52 
90,332 50 
87,466 42 

1883. 

28 

73,338 00 
75,120 00 

15,590 52 
15,212 50 
14,158 42 

1884. 

28 

1885. .. 

28 

73, 308 00 



Tntnl 



1,514,385 56 

445,036 67 

1,959,412 23 




No. 7. 

MEMORANDUM. 

Concerning the 1 1 Fraud Roll. 7 7 

Special Agents’ Division. 

In the sundry civil appropriation bill approved March 3, 1879, it is 
provided “that the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized to expend out of the appropriation for defraying the ex¬ 
penses of collecting the revenue from customs such amount as he may 
deem necessary, not exceeding $100,000 per annum, for the detection 
and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue.” 

Under the authority of the provision referred to, there was expended 
for salaries and expenses as follows: 


Fiscal year ended June 30, 1880. $23, 389 25 

Fiscal year ended June 30, 1881. 33, 641 84 

Fiscal year ended June 30, 1882. 36, 281 70 

Fiscal year ended June 30, 1883. 64, 603 15 

Fiscal year ended June 30, 1884. 64, 857 74 

Fiscal year ended June 30, 1885—First quarter. $13, 742 92 

Second quarter. 23, 038 10 

Third quarter. 22, 848 75 

Fourth quarter. 10, 237 37 

- 69,867 14 

Fiscal year ending June 30, 1886—First quarter. l } 793 40 


The highest number of persons employed and paid under the pro¬ 
vision quoted was 50, who were on the roll November 1, 1884. The 
number now employed is 11, of whom 5 are experts employed in Europe. 

L. G. MARTIN. 


October 20, 1885. 








































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 286 * 


No. 8. 


Statement showing Annual Expense of the Special Agents, Special Inspectors, and u Fraud- 
Roll ’ ’ Employes for the last five years, each year beginning July 1 and ending June 30. 


Year. 

Special agents. 

Special inspec¬ 
tors. 

“Fraud roll.” 

1881. 

$92,701 72 
88,916 54 
88,928 52 
90,332 50 
87,466 42 

$25,762 54 
31,966 99 
46,818 72 
46,713 09 
52,672 02 

$33,641 84 
36,281 70 
64,603 15 
64,857 74 
69,867 14 

1882. 

1883. 

1884. 

1885. 



448,345 70 

203,933 36 

269,251 57 


Special agents. $448,345 70 

Special inspectors. 203,933 36 

“Fraud roll”. 269,251 57 

Total for five years. 921,530 63 

Average per year. 184,306 13 


No. 9. 

List of Special Agents, Special Inspectors, and “ Fraud Roll ” Employes in Service De¬ 
cember, 1885. 


SPECIAL AGENTS. 


Name. 


Martin, L. G., (supervising special agent). 

Adams, C. C. 

Ayer, Ira, jr. 

Barney, A. M. 

Cowan, D. S. 

Crowley, J. J.. 

Harden, Mark. 

Hanlon, Marcus. 

Hinds, B. H. 

Jerome, L. C. 

Jewell, Jas. A. 

Lapp, C. H. 

Mahon, Jno. J. 

Moore, H. A. 

Peck, J. B. 

Phenix, Legare. 

Power, J. D. 

Sachse, Theo. C. 

Tichenor, Geo. C. 

Tingle, A. K. 

Whitehead, G. W. 

Williams, Wm. H. 

Young, W. S. 


Station. 


.[ Washington, D. C.. 

. Philadelphia, Pa.... 
J New York, N. Y .... 

.[ Galveston, Tex. 

. Savannah, Ga. 

. Chicago, Ill. 

. Boston, Mass. 

. New York, N. Y ... 

. New York, N. Y .... 

,i El Paso, Tex. 

. New York, N. Y .... 
. Cleveland, Ohio .... 

. Baltimore, Md. 

Tucson, Arizona.... 
. New York, N. Y ... 

. Chicago, Ill. 

. New York, N. Y ... 

. New Orleans, La... 

. At large. 

. At large.. 

. Suspension Bridge 
. Cincinnati, Ohio.... 
. Ogdensburg, N. Y. 


Compensation. 


$8 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 
$8 per diem. 
$6 per diem. 

























































































286 ** REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


SPECIAL INSPECTORS. 


(Sections 2605, 2606, and 2999, Revised Statutes.) 


Caulk, Jas. T. 

Chamberlin, S. E. 

Cole, W. H. 

Cummings, J. C. 

Church, J. B. 

Delaney, P. K. 

Dupont, Chas. 

Dyer, Bradbury. 

Fallon, Jno. J. 

Gibbs, Jas. J... 

Harrison, D. B.,. 

Kruyezanowski, W. 

Lowery, T. II. 

Martin, Frank. 

Malone, T. G. 

Oliver, Sanders N. 

O’Neill, Jno.. 

Passegger, Francis. 

Phinney, S. B. 

Silva, U. M. C. 

Simmons, Geo. II. 

Thornton, W. H. 

Walker, J. W. 

Whalen, Wm. 

McClemon, Jas. 

Montgomery, L. M. 


Baltimore, Md. 

Norfolk, Va. 

Cape Vincent, N. Y. 

New York, N. Y. 

Rochester, N. Y. 

Rouse’s Point, N. Y. 

Detroit, Mich. 

Albany, N. Y. 

New York, N. Y. 

Savannah, Ga. 

New Yoi’k, N. Y. 

New York, N. Y. 

New York, N. Y. 

Buffalo, N. Y. 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

New Orleans, La .... 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

New York, N. Y. 

Barnstable, Mass. 

Ogden. LTtah. 

New York City. 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

Erie, Pa. 

Chicago, Ill. 

Panama, U. S. C. 

Aspinwall, U. S. C .. 


. $4 per diem. 

, $4 per diem. 

. $4 per diem. 

. J $4 per diem. 

,| $4 per diem. 

. $4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per dfem. 

$4 per diem, 
j $4 per diem. 

! $4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

I $4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$4 per diem. 

$2,500 per annum. 
$2,500 per annum. 


“FRAUD ROLL” EMPLOYES. 
(Act March 3, 1879.) 


Hall, Raymond, Volerin 

McSweeney, Daniel. 

Richter, C, S. 

Schmidt, John. 

Schneider, Wm. 

Winslow, Norris.».. 


Lyons, France, (silk experts) 

San Francisco, Cal. 

Basle, (silk expert). j. 

Horgen, (silk expert). 

Zurich, (silk expert). 

Watertowm, N. Y.. 


$1,500 per annum 
$4 per diem. 

$800 per annum. 
$650 per annum. 
$900 per annum. 
$6 per diem. 


Estimated Annual Cost of Present Force of Special Agents, Special Inspectors , and “ Fraud 


Roll ” Employes. 

Special agents: 

• Salaries. $58, 400 

Expenses. 8, 000 

Total. 66, 400 

Special inspectors: 

Salaries. $40,040 

Expenses. 5, 000 

Total. 45, 040 

“Fraud roll’’ employes: 

Salaries. $7, 500 

Expenses. 1,000 

Total. 8,500 

Special agents. $66,400 

Special inspectors. 45 040 

“Fraud roll”.8,’500 

Total . 119,940 


Note. —Salaries, actual; expenses, estimated. 







































































































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 287 


No. 10. 

October 13, 1885. 

Statement showing the number and compensation of assistant appraisers and 
examiners in the several divisions of the appraiser's department at the port 
of New York, the classes of goods examined in each division , and the invoice 
value of such merchandise , and amount of duties thereon , for the first six 
months of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885. 

First Division. —Merchandise, on which damage allowance is 
claimed; packed packages, except watches, jewelry, and precious 
stones; personal effects, sample packages, seized goods, living animals, 
building material, casks, shooks and hoops, chalk and plaster, coal, felt 
for roofing and sheathing, guano, gutta-percha, unmanufactured india- 
rubber, hides, hide cuttings, hoofs, horns, ice; ivory, unmanufactured: 
ivory-nuts, junk, laths, lumber, mother-of-pearl, oakum, paper-stock, 
rags, shells; skins, not furs; spars; spiling, veneering, wood, cabinet. 


Value of invoices passed in six months. $923, 507 

Duties thereon. 194, 826 

Number of packages, 8,950. 


Number and compensation of examiners employed. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000 ; two examiners, at $2,500 ; one examiner, 
$2,300 ; one examiner, $2,200 ; two examiners, at $2,000 ; three examiners, at $1,800 ; 
three examiners, at $1,600 ; one examiner, $1,400. 

Free goods, $68,260,000. 

Second Division. —Albums, antiquities, artists’ materials, bronzes, 
clocks, fancy goods of every description, fancy boxes, gold and silver 
ware, jewelry of all kinds, marble and spar, small and fancy manufact¬ 
ures of mosaics, musical instruments, opticals, optical and philosoph¬ 
ical instruments, tiles, photographic apparatus, paintings, paper, pre¬ 
cious stones, porcelain-ware, printed matter, sealing-wax, stationery, 
statuary, toys, Parian types, watches, watch materials, works of art, 
glassware, alabaster, glass and porcelain, small manufactures of crock¬ 
ery, drain-pipe, earthenware. 


Value of invoices massed in six months. $10, 251, 078 

Duties thereon. 2, 922, 031 

Number of packages, 27,514. 


Number and compensation of examiners employed. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000 ; two examiners, at $2,500; five examiners, 
at $1,800 ; one examiner, $1,400. 

Third Division. —Braids and bindings, buttons; silk and worsted 
button material, cut; embroideries, except of gold and silver; hatters’ 
plush; laces and lace goods of every description, except lace curtains; 
mosquito and other nets; ladies’ silk wearing-apparel; silk, raw, tram, 
and organzine, and all manufactures of silk, trimmings. 

Value of invoices passed in six months. $18, 626, 598 

Duties thereon. 640, 554 

Number of packages, 15,550. 

Number and compensation of examiners employed. 

One assistant appraiser, 3,000; two examiners, at $2,500; one examiner, $2,200 ; five 
examiners, at $1,800. 

Fourth Division.— Bags, bagging, binding, curtain-holders; gutta¬ 
percha and india-rubber, manufactures of, except toys; ladies’ linen 








288 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and cotton wearing-apparel, lace curtains, linen and cotton tape; man¬ 
ufactures of cotton, flax, grass, hemp, jute, or of which either of these 
articles shall be a component of chief value, except carpets, carpeting, 
mats, matting, and oil-cloth; mosquito and other nets, rope and cordage, 
school-bags of hemp, grass, or jute; thread of linen or cotton, tidies, 
twine, webbing. 


Value of invoices passed in six months. $11, 338, 600 

Duties thereon. 4,145, 417 

Number of packages, 13,562. 


Number and compensation of examiners employed. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,500 ; two examiners, at 
$2,200; two examiners, at $2,000. 

Fifth Division. —Baskets, bonnets, bunting, corsets, corset-laces; 
feathers, crude and ornamental; feather-beds, new; flowers, artificial or 
natural, dyed and dried; gloves, hair braids, hats, hosiery, hoods, knit 
goods, jerseys, stockinets; knit goods in piece, of whatever material, 
and all garments made thereof; millinery goods, parasols, regalias, 
straw-braids, umbrellas, willows, willow-ware, worsted dress-goods, 
German and English; woollen yarn. 


Value of invoices passed in six months. $11, 688, 444 

Duties thereon... 5, 609,100 

Number of packages, 13,622. 


Number of examiners and their compensation. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,500; one examiner, 
$2,200 ; one examiner, $2,000; one examiner, $1,800. 

Sixth Division. —Bristles; canes, unmanufactured; carpets, carpet¬ 
ing ; coir, esparto and sisal-grass fibre; flax, flocks; furs, and all manu¬ 
factures of fur; hair of all kinds; hemp, istle, jute, mats, matting, oil¬ 
cloths, palm-leaf, rattan; shoddy-wool, and all materials which enter into 
or form a component part of textile fabrics, except cotton and silk; shawls, 
all except cotton and silk ; upholstery goods of wool, worsted, or hair; 
whalebone; all kinds woollen cloth, and all manufactures of wool, worsted, 
or hair ; worsted dress-goods, French. • 


Value of invoices passed in six months. |18, 733, 200 

Duties thereon. 8, 410, 541 

Number of packages, 15,774. 


Number and compensation of examiners employed. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,500; one examiner. 
$2,000; two examiners, at $1,800. 

Seventh Division. —Anatomical preparations, apothecaries’ glass¬ 
ware, asphaltum, bituminous substances, brimstone, cardamom-seeds, 
chalk, chemicals, chemical apparatus, clay, corks, cork-tree bark, 
dextrine, drugs, dye-woods, dyestuffs, earths, extracts, gelatine, gums, 
gypsum, isinglass, leeches, lemon-peel, lime, medicines, mineral water, 
mustard-seed, paints, perfumery, plaster of paris, printing-ink, pumice- 
stone, quicksilver, resinous substances, saltpetre, soap for toilet, speci¬ 
mens of botany and natural history, sponge, spunk, squills, surgical 
instruments, sulphur ore, varnishes, vanilla-beans, vinegar; wax, bees’ 
and vegetable; water-colors, moist and dry. 


Value of invoices passed in six months. $4 389 285 

Duties thereon. 4’ 323’ 5ig 

Number of packages, 10,642. 










REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


289 


Number and compensation of examiners employed. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,500; three examiners, 
at $1,800. 

Eighth Division. —Boots and shoes of leather, bricks, confection¬ 
ery, glass, glucose, honey, leather, melado, molasses, sugar. 


Value of invoices passed in six months. $31, 088, 400 

Duties thereon... 18,270,821 

Number of packages, 2,588. 


Number and compensation of examiners. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; two examiners, at $2,500; one examiner, 
$2,200 ; four examiners, at $1,800. 

^Tinth Division. —Asbestos, blacking, bronze-powders, busks; but¬ 
tons, except worsted and silk; carriages, coach hardware, cutlery, Dutch 
metal, emery, epaulets, gold and silver leaf, gold and silver galloons, 
gold-beaters’* skins, hardware, hones, harness; iron, and manufactures 
of iron; jews-harps, machinery, metals, marble monuments of all 
kinds, mica, models, needles, ores, pen tips and holders, pins, saddlery, 
slate; stone, for building; burr, grind; steel, and manufactures of steel; 
flint, polishing and lithographic steel-pens, watch-makers’ tools. 


Value of invoices passed in six months. $13, 788, 398 

Duties thereon. . 4, 554,132 

Number of packages, 9,418. 


Number and compensation of examiners. 

One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,000; two examiners, at 
$1,800; one examiner, $1,600. 

Laboratory .—One examiner, $2,500; one examiner, 2,200; four examiners, at $1,800; 
three examiners, at $1,200. 

Tenth Division. —Ale, beverages, cigars, cigarettes, cocoa, coffee, 
cordials, fireworks, food,fruits, furniture, grain, grease; groceries, except 
molasses and sugar; gunpowder, hops, lemon and lime juice, malt; 
nuts, not drugs; oils, except essential, medicinal, and painters’; plants, 
porter, seeds; soap, not toilet; soap-stock, sapoline, spirituous liquors, 
snuff, tobacco, wafers, edible wines. 


Value of invoices passed in six months. $18, 368, 200 

Duties thereon. 8,143,871 

Number of packages, 17,774. 


Number and compensation of examiners. 

One assistant appraiser, $3,000; five examiners, at $2,500; one examiner, $1,800. 


RECAPITULATION. 


Divisions. 

Value. 

Duties. 

No. of 
packages. 

First division.......•*••••••• 

$923,507 00 
10,251,078 00 
18,626,598 00 
11,338,600 00 
11,688,414 00 

18.733.200 00 
4,389,285 00 

31,088,400 00 
13,788,398 00 

18.368.200 00 

$194,826 00 
2,922,031 00 
8,640,554 00 
4,145,417 00 
5,609,100 00 
8,410,541 00 
1,328,518 00 
18,270,824 00 
4,554,132 00 
8,143,871 00 

8,950 

27,514 

15,550 

13,562 

13,622 

15.774 
10,642 

2,588 

9,418 

17.774 

Second division .*.••••••••••••••••****i •••*•*••••••••••••••• 

Third division...**..*****#***.... 

Fourth division........ 

Fifth division..... 

Sixth division.. 

Seventh division..*........ 

ighth division...... 

Ninth division....... 

Tenth division.. *.. 

Total . 

139,195,710 00 

62,219,811 00 

135,394 



Free goods, $68,260,000. 

19 A 




























290 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


THE BARGE OFFICE AT NEW YORK. 


No. 1. 

[Memorandum.] 

Mr. John H. Starin writes as follows: 

“ I wish to assign my contract with the Government for the transpor¬ 
tation of baggage to the Barge Office, which was made on August 16 
1884, to 4 Starin’s City, River and Harbor Transportation Company. 7 
As it now is, the contract appears in my name. 

44 I am anxious to make this assignment, but a clause in the contract 
reads: 4 This contract shall not be assigned without the written au¬ 
thority of the Secretary of the Treasury, and any assignment without such 
authority shall cause a forfeiture of the same. 7 

u 1 assume that it is simply a formality, but at the same time, in the 
rush of business, the Secretary of the Treasury might not have time to 
give the necessary written consent unless it was pressed upon him. 7 ’ 


No. 2. 

February 25,1885. 

Collector of Customs, 

New York: 

Sir : The Department is informed that Mr. John H. Starin, who holds 
the contract for transferring baggage to the Barge Office at your port, 
desires to transfer or assign his contract to the 44 Starin 7 s City, River, 
and Harbor Transportation Company. 77 

The contract contains a clause that it shall not be transferred or as¬ 
signed without the consent of this Department. I see no objection to 
the transfer of the contract to the company referred to, it being under¬ 
stood that the work will continue to be done with the same class of 
boats as at present. The question of a new bond by the contractor 
intervenes, and it would seem as though a new bond should be ex¬ 
acted from the parties to whom the contract is to be assigned, leaving 
the old bond, of course, to stand as regards past liabilities. Please con¬ 
fer with Mr. Starin on the subject, and advise me if you see any objec¬ 
tion. If you do not, you will consider this letter as an approval by this 
Department of the proposition. You will forward a notification of the 
action taken, and send a copy of the new bond to the Department. 

Very respectfully, 

H. McCULLOCH, 

Secretary. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 291 


No. 3. 


Custom House, New York, 

Collector’s Office , February 28, 1885. 
Sir : I have to report that upon authority of your letter of the 25th 
ultimo, the contract for transferring baggage to the Barge Office has 
this clay been transferred from Mr. John H. Starin to “ Starin’s City, 
River, and Harbor Transportation Company.” 

A copy of the new bond is herewith submitted as requested. 

Very respectfully, 


W. H. ROBERTSON, 

Collector. 


Hon. H. McCulloch, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


[Enclosure.] 


Know all men by these presents, that we, John H. Starin, John Walsh, and Howard 
Carroll, tlie executive officers of Starin’s City, River and Harbor Transportation Com¬ 
pany, as principals, and John H. Starin, of Fultonville, Montgomery County, State 
of New York. Anuing Smith, John Lenox, and William C. Egerton, as sureties, are 
held and firmly bound unto the United States of America in the penal sum of fifty 
thousand dollars ($50,000), for the paymentof which well and truly to be made tothe 
said United States, we bind ourselves, our and each of our heirs, executors, and admin¬ 
istrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals and 
dated this 281 h day of February, A D. one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five. 

The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bouuden, Starin’s City, 
River, and Harbor Transportation Company, shall well and truly perform, fulfill, and 
keep each and all of the covenants conditions, and agreements specified and contained 
in a certain contract and agreement, bearing date the 16th day of August, A. D. 1884, 
and made between the said John II. Starin, of the one part, and William II. Robertson, 
as collector of customs at the por tof New York, acting for the United States, by direc¬ 
tion and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury of said United States, of 
the other part, which said contract and agreement relates to the labor and service to 
be performed by the said John H. Starin in the transfer of passengers and their bag¬ 
gage from incoming steamers to the new Barge Office dock at. said port of New York, 
commeuciug ou the 2?th day of August, A. D. 1884, and ending ou the 27th day of 
August. 18«7, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and 
value. 

JNO. H. STARIN. 

ANN TNG SMITH. 

JOHN LENOX. 

WILLIAM C. EGERTON. 

HOWARD CARROLL. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of— 

Hugh Smith. 


State of New York, 

City of New York 8s : 

John H. Starin, of Fultonville, Montgomery County, N. Y., Anuing Smith, John 
Lenox, William C. Egerton, and Howard Carroll, the sureties named in the within 
bond, being duly sworn, each for himself, and not. one for the other, deposes and says, 
that he is a resident and freeholder within the State of New York, and is worth the 
sum of ($25,000) twenty-live thousand dollars, over and above his.just debts and lia¬ 
bilities, in unincumbered property, situate within this State, which is not exeuipt 
from execution and forced sale. 


JNO. H. STARIN. 

Cl. 

8.] 

ANNING SMITH. 

[L. 

8.] 

JOHN LENOX. 

[L. 

8 .] 

WILLIAM C. EGERTON. 

[L. 

8.] 

HOWARD CaRROLL. 

[L. 

S.] 


Subscribed and sworn to 
[L. 8.] 


before me this 28th day of February, 1885. 

HENRY L. JOYCE, 
Commissioner of Deeds, New York, 


i 


292 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 4. 


Department of Justice, 

Office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, 

Washington, 1). C., March 9, 1885. 

Sir: I bare the honor to return herewith, without my approval, the 
bond for the faithful performance of a contract for the transfer of baggage 
to the barge office, at the port of New York, originally executed by John 
H. Starin, on the 16th of August, 1884, and subsequently assigned by 
him to Starin’s City, River and Harbor Transportation Company of 
New York. The objections to the bond are: 

(1) The bond is not signed and executed by the principal. 

(2) No evidence is furnished that John H. Starin, John Walsh, and 
Howard Carroll are the executive officers of the company, and as such 
were authorized to execute the bond. 

(3) The name of Howard Carroll, who signs the bond as a surety, does 
not appear in the body of the instrument as one of the sureties. 

(4) The sufficiency of the sureties is not certified; and 

(5) It may be doubted whether the contract, for the faithful per¬ 
formance of which by the assignee the bond was executed, could be 
legally assigned under section 3737 of the Revised Statutes, which pro 
hibits the assignment of public contracts. (See also 9 C. Cls. 155, 11 
Id. 638, 5 Op. A. G. 502.) 

It has been held, however, by the Attorney-General, that the statute 
in question was iutended for the benefit of the United States by making 
such contracts void at the option of the Government. (16 Op. A. G. 277.) 

No opinion is expressed by the Attorney General as to the authority 
of the Secretary to accept the bond of the assignee for the performance 
of the contract. It is believed, however, that such instrument would 
be valid as a voluntary bond should the Secretary elect to recognize 
the assignment. In this event the bond of the original contractor 
would probably be vacated by the acceptance of the bond of the as 


signee. 

Very respectfully, 


J. H. ROBINSON, 
Acting Solicitor of the Treasury. 


The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 5. 

[Memorandum.] 

Treasury Deparment, March 11, 1885. 

In re assignment of contract J. H. Starin. To be reserved for the 
consideration of my successor. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

H. F. FRENCH, 

Assistant Secretary . 


No. 6. 

Treasury Department, March 14, 1885. 
The first question in this case is whether the present Secretary con 
sents to the proposed assignment of this cop tract. Second, if he does, 
does the law permit it, 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 293 


The other points suggested by the Solicitor are minor ODes, which 
can be easily remedied. 


II. B. JAMES, 
Chief of Customs Division. 


No. 7. 

March 20, 1885. 

There being no apparent advantage to the Government in allowing 
assignment of this contract, and the legal power to do so being doubt¬ 
ful, as well as the effect upon bondsmen, I advise that the assignment 
be not allowed. 

C. S. FAIRCHILD, 

Assistant Secretary. 


No. 8. 


March 21, 1885. 

The opinion of Assistant Secretary Fairchild is approved. The De¬ 
partment declines to approve the assignment of the contract. 

D. MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 9. 


Collector of Customs, 

New Yorlc: 


March 23rd, 1885. 


Sir: Referring to your letter of the 28th ultimo, inclosing a bond, 
submitted in connection with the transfer of the contract for taking 
baggage to the Barge Office, from Mr. John H. Starin to the “ Starin’s 
City, River, and Harbor Transportation Company,” I have to state that 
the bond in question was referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who 
points out several defects in it, and adds that it may be doubted whether 
the contract could, in view of section 3737 of the Revised Statutes, be 
legally assigned. 

There being no apparent advantage to the Government in allowing 
assignment of this contract, and the legal jrnwer to do so being doubt¬ 
ful, I decline to approve the assignment of the contract. 

Very respectfully, 


D. MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 10. 

Collector of Customs, 

New Yorlc , N. Y.: 


March 16,1885. 


Sir : The representations and complaints growing out of the treat¬ 
ment of passengers and their baggage arriving by water at the port of 
New York require the immediate attention of this Department. In or¬ 
der that I may be fully and officially informed of all the facts and cir¬ 
cumstances, you are directed, in association with the naval officer and 
surveyor of the port, to make immediate inquiry into the alleged evils 






294 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


of the existing system in the management of the barge office, and into 
the remedies of those evils if they shall be found to exist, and make 


report to me in writing. 
Very respectfully, 


D. MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 11. 


Custom-House, New York, 

Collector's Office , March 26, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the 16th instant relative to complaints growing out of the treatment of 
passengers and their baggage at the barge office at this port. As 
therein suggested, I immediately conferred with the naval officer and 
the surveyor in the matter, and they urged that we should sit as a com¬ 
mission and invite persons to come before us and give testimony as to 
their experience. 

It appears to me, however, that the present plan of affording passen¬ 
gers an opportunity of employing one express company to transfer their 
baggage iscapableof decided improvement, and that, too, in a way that no 
room will be left for complaint; and acting upon that conviction, I sub¬ 
mitted to the surveyor, on the 20th instant, certain suggestions to that 
end, and asked him to report his views thereon. He informs me to-day 
that his report is in course of preparation, and will be presented as soon 
as it is completed. 

I took ibis course, believing that an extended inquiry would develop 
ouly what is already manifest; but if it be your pleasure that persons 
shall be invited to appear and give testimony, I shall promptly comply 
with your instructions. 

The taking of testimony would naturally be tedious, and the parties 
interested in the present system would perhaps not be averse to having 
the investigation prolonged for their benefit. 

Very respectfully, 


W. H. ROBERTSON, 


Collector. 


Hon. D. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 12. 

Custom-House, New York, 

Surveyor's Ofice , March 28,1885. 

Sir : Your letter, dated March 20,1885, transmitting a letter from the 
honorable Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 16th instant, “ relative 
to the treatment of passengers and their baggage when landed at the 
Barge Office,” and inclosing a memorandum of the deputy collector 
assigned to duty at the Barge Office, “in which he suggests certain 
changes to secure to the passengers an option in the employment of ex¬ 
press companies for the removal of baggage ” and for exchanging money, 
and requesting my views thereon, and also requesting me to make thor¬ 
ough investigation and report whether the transfer of the pssaengers 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 295 


from steamers to the Barge Office has been satisfactorily performed, has 
received my consideration. 

1 have to state that on the arrival of every steamship bringing pas¬ 
sengers an order is issued by the collector and naval officer directing 
the surveyor or an insp ctor of customs to examine the baggage of the 
passengers, aud, if dut iable articles are found therein, to report the same 
to the collector. 

For 30 years past successive surveyors have represented to the col¬ 
lectors and the Department the difficulties encountered in performing 
their duties on the steamship wharves, and have strenuously urged that 
a place controlled by the Government should be provided for that pur¬ 
pose. 

Iu the years 1860-1870 Congress made appropriations amounting to 
$220,000 for a barge office in New York. The sums appropriated were 
expended in the purchase of lands and the construction of retaining 
walls, &c. By the act approved June 15, 1878, Congress appropriated 
$220,000 for the purchase of an additional piece of ground for the ex¬ 
tension of the sea-walls and for the erection of a barge office with suitable 
sheds, in which to examine the baggageof passengers. The sum being 
insufficient, other appropriations, amounting to $120,000, were subse¬ 
quently made for the same purpose. 

The Barge Office building, although unfinished and unfurnished, was 
occupied for customs purposes ou the 1st day of January, 1883. 

In January, 1884, inquiries were made by the Department relative to 
the condition of the Barge Office annex. The information was given, 
and in a letter to the collector, dated March 12, 1884, the Department 
informed him that u when ready, it is proposed to occupy it for the ex¬ 
amination of baggage.” The successive steps that were taken by the 
customs officials in conference with the steamship agents and the 
health officer of the port relative to the transfer of the passengers from 
vessels to the Barge Office were reported to the Department on or about 
the 13th May, 1884. After advertisement for proposals for the trans¬ 
fer service, a contract was made with Mr. John 11. fcftariu, which weut 
into effect on the 27th day of August, 1884. 

The steamship wharves are leased from the city and are under con¬ 
trol of the agents of steamship companies. They admitted upon the 
wharf when a steamship arrived whom and as many persons as they 
pleased, without regard to the convenience of the customs officers or 
the protection of the revenue; and as the wharves are invariably in- 
cumbered with merchandise and by vehicles receiving and delivering 
merchandise, the space in which baggage was examined was restricted 
to a narrow passage way lengthwise the wharf or to vacant spaces be¬ 
tween piles of merchandise. Although the principal steamship com¬ 
panies have within the few years past provided themselves with more 
capacious wharves for the transaction of their business, it has not, be¬ 
cause of the greater number of passengers coming in larger steamships, 
afforded any more room for the examination of baggage. 

As soon as it was known thai it was intended to concentrate the ex¬ 
amination of baggage at the Barge Office, a vigorous opposition by per¬ 
sons who were pecuniarily interested in continuing the landing of pas¬ 
sengers’ baggage at the wharves was developed. These included the 
omphnAs of the steamship companies, and the persons having the mo¬ 
nopoly of, or an interest in, the conveying of passengers and their bag¬ 
gage from t he wharves, and also the proprietors of lodging and driuking 
houses iu the neighborhood. 

This opposition in New Jersey was sufficient to have the passengers 


296 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


of steamships whose landing place is in Jersey City and Hoboken ex¬ 
empted from transfer to the Barge Office. 

On the arrival of every steamer with passengers at the Jersey wharves 
a force of customs inspector s, appraisers, and clerks are necessarily sent 
to perform duties relative to the examination of baggage. The German 
steamship agents afford all the facilities within their power to aid the 
customs business and to prevent the intrusion of unauthorized persons 
on the spaces required for examining baggage. 

It was, perhaps, unfortunate that the examination of baggage at the 
Barge Office was begun in the season of the year when the greatest num 
her of passengers with the largest amount of baggage comes to this port 
because it gave an opportunity for those who were opposed to the change 
to exaggerate the alleged defects in an untried system; and the few in¬ 
stances soon after the beginning of the Barge-Office examination, when 
the incoming of several large steamers on the same day, and nearly at 
the same time, caused some necessary delay, and consequently complaint 
by impatient passengers and their friends, are still quoted as a ground 
for abolishing the system. 

In striking contrast to the unclean and.crowded steamship wharves, 
the Barge Office annex has a floor area of nearly 20,000 square feet; the 
floor is laid and caulked like a ship’s deck, and is unencumbered except 
by the small customs office for the use of the deputy collector and his 
clerks, and by an iuclosure containing urinals, &c.,for the accommoda¬ 
tion of male passengers. As much space as can be afforded is railed off, 
so that persons can step from the large waiting-room in the building to 
the floor to meet their friends. 

The annex is tolerably well warmed in cold weather by steam, is 
well lighted by gas. The fixtures are so arranged that baggage can be, 
as it often is, examined after sunset. The Government roadway in 
front of the premises is lighted by three electric lights, and an adequate 
police force, in charge of a superior officer, was provided by the police 
commissioners in August last, for the protection of persons and property 
while on the Government premises. 

Your letter directs me to make an investigation and report as to the 
transfer of passengers. In regard thereto I have to state: By the 
terms of the contract, the transfer service is to be performed by and 
with “suitable barges, steamboats, or other vessels, according to the 
condition of the weather, and subject to the approval of the collector 
of the port.” The vessels employed by the coutractor are three side- 
wheel steamboats, two of which are each above 400 gross tons burden, 
and the third above 500 tons. Each steamboat is provided with the 
official certificates required by the “steamboat act.” During the winter 
season the cabins and saloons are kept warm by stoves and steam heat, 
and each boat has a stewardess for the care of the “ladies’ cabin.” 
These steamboats were formerly employed summer and winter in mak¬ 
ing regular hourly trips between the city and the north shore of Staten 
Island. They are well equipped passenger boats, and each of them is 
fitted up for the accommodation of a much larger number of passengers 
than is brought by any steamship. When an incoming steamship has 
anchored in Quarantine, one of the transfer steamboats—which are held 
in readiness at the Quarantine dock—is put alongside of and secured to 
the steamship and the transfer of baggage is begun as soon as the offi¬ 
cers of the steamship are ready to deliver it. The time required to 
make the transfer of baggage at Quarantine depends upon the quan¬ 
tity of baggage, the preliminary measures taken to facilitate its delivery 
by getting it out of the hold, and the alacrity with which the work is 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 297 


done by the steamship employes. Before, or as soon as the baggage is 
delivered to the transfer boat, the passengers go from the steamship to 
the transfer steamboat, over a short railed gangway, securely fastened 
to both vessels, and from the upper deck the passengers descend to the 
saloons of the transfer boat by stairways. The time occupied in run¬ 
ning to the Barge Office dock (about five miles) is about twenty-five min¬ 
utes. As soon as the transfer boat is made fast alongside of the Barge 
Office bulkhead, the baggage—which is carried on the forward part of 
the main deck of the transfer boat—is taken into the Barge Office on 
hand trucks ; and in this work both the deck hands of the transfer boat 
and the Barge Office laborers are employed, and it is rapidly done. 

Since the beginningof the transfer service to the present date there 
has been no damage done to the person or property of any passenger, 
except two slight injuries to frail baggage. Compensation for the dam¬ 
age was, in each case, promptly made by the contractor. Nor has the 
severity of the weather hindered or prevented the transfer boats from 
pelforming their daily service in the usual time. 

In my opinion the service has been well performed, and lean suggest 
no practical improvement therein. 

In regard to the removal of baggage after it has been examined, I 
have to state that the New York City Transfer Company, represented by 
Messrs. Biglin & McCord, have been allowed the exclusive privilege, 
within the building, of booking baggage for delivery. This privilege 
was accorded by me as custodian of the building, at the suggestion of 
the late Secretary, Judge Folger, when he visited the Barge Office with 
me in July, 1884. It is a privilege which can be revoked at any time 

The memorandum of the deputy collector is to the effect that the priv¬ 
ilege so accorded is an objectionable monopoly, and that other express 
companies should be allowed in the building to solicit patronage. I be¬ 
lieve that a similar “monopoly” exists on every railroad, and did exist 
on every steamship wharf in this city; that is to say: instead of admitting 
upon the premises all baggage carriers to solicit custom, one person or 
company is selected and granted the privilege. 

If a passenger prefers to employ any other express company or bag¬ 
gage-carrier—and they can always be found standing in the roadway 
in front of the Barge Office—there is no restraint or objection to his 
doing so, and on request his baggage will be removed to the street by 
the Government laborers. I am informed that the maximum rates for 
carrying baggage by expressmeu are regulated by city ordinances; but 
usually the price is made a matter of agreement between the passenger 
and the baggage-carrier. The first-class passengers of steamships are 
usually persons of intelligence, and they are fully informed on ship¬ 
board in relation to all the business processes of the Barge Office. 

Each of the “trunk-line” railroads leading out of this city is now, 
and has been since August last, represented on the Barge-Office floor by 
an authorized agent, designated by the name of the railroad on his cap, 
to afford to passengers information in regard to the railroad he repre¬ 
sents. 

My opinion and the opinion of the customs officials at the Barge Office 
with whom I have consulted on this matter is, that it is not desirable to 
have in the Barge Office annex any greater number of persons for so¬ 
liciting passengers or booking baggage than is necessary for the rea¬ 
sonable convenience of the passengers and the prompt removal of bag¬ 
gage. 

1 have stated the facts as they appear upon the official records, or as 
can be substantiated. I am in favor, and so expressed myself at our 


298 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


first conference with the naval officer, of a public and comprehensive 
inquiry relative to the Barge Office business, and of any and all com¬ 
plaints alleged to have been made in regard thereto. Any further ac¬ 
tion deemed by my official superiors necessary to be taken by me in 
regard to the matters mentioned in the Department letter dated March 
10 will receive my immediate attention. 

I return the papers referred to me. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES L. BENEDICT, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Wm. H. Robertson, 

Collector. 


[Memorandum.] 

Custom-House, New York, 

Collector’s Office , March 18, 1885. 

The question, whether the landing of passengers and baggage at the 
Barge Office is an improvement over the old system of landing at the 
different docks, must be answered by all candid observers in the affirm¬ 
ative. 

It is true, fault is found, and criticisms passed upon the Government, 
for this expensive though successful outlay of money, in order, not only 
to facilitate the landing of passengers, but provide the most decent and 
convenient, as well also the most imposing in all its appointment and 
surroundings of any landing place to be found in any nation on earth. 

Without discussing the underlying motives of the attacks on the 
“Barge Office” (which are pretty well understood, and may be, nearly 
all traced to one source), it is suggested that the problem of satisfying 
the demands of the public in reference to the handling of baggage may 
be solved by admitting to the “ Barge Office ” tbe agents of the promi¬ 
nent baggage expresses now in existence, viz: The New York Transfer 
Company (late Dodd’s), Westcots, Bighn & Co., and possibly one or two 
others. Let these agents be assigned a place (by lot) near the exit, each 
have a sign over their station displaying their designation, and tariff of 
prices for the delivery of baggage to different points. The natural com- 
petion between these expresses will be a safeguard against extortion or 
ovei charge. None of these agents to be allowed to circulate amongst 
passengers to solicit business; but, when a passenger engages any one 
of the companies, let the agent go and check his baggage, and immedi¬ 
ately return to his post. This plan will prevent confusion. 

Exclusive privilege to handle baggage should not be granted to any 
one company or express, whether that privilege is attained by public 
bidding or otherwise. What the public demands is open competition 
and a tree choice; it will be satisfied with nothing less. Without dis¬ 
cussing the merits of the case, it is undeniable that the present system 
of handling baggage is variously denounced as a “ monopoly,” a “ favor¬ 
itism,” “un-American,” and “undemocratic.” 

Careful observation and inquiry have demonstrated that tbe three 
great bonded express companies,* viz, Wells-Fargo, the American, and 
the National (each under a half million dollar bond) should be 
allowed to have an agent in attendance on the arrival of steamers to 
receive all dutiable baggage in transit through the United States. It 
often happens that families, whose homes are in the interior, arrive 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 299 


with ten, twenty, or thirty trunks. They wish to remain in the city a 
day or more. They can turn over their extra baggage to these express 
companies, which would relieve them of a great burden and expense. 
At present it costs mtich more to get their baggage from the Barge Office 
to their hotel and thence again to the depot, and then, in addition, the 
extra railroad charge tor all over 150 pounds, than it does to send it 
direct from the Barge Office by express. Again, these agents would be 
of infinite advantage to strangers as a general information bureau. 
Their lines running to all sections of the country, they are necessarily 
well-informed men. These express companies have a national reputa¬ 
tion and are quasi-bankers; therefore they could be, with perfect safety 
authorized to exchange foreign money for passengers without the least 
exposing the administration to unfriendly criticism, admitting these 
bonded express companies would be of the greatest benefit in many 
ways to passengers, and be correspondingly popular with the public 
as a move in the right direction. 

Itespectfully submitted. 

N. G. WILLIAMS, 

Deputy Collector. 


No. 14. 

Port of New York, Naval Office, March 31,1885. 
Hon. D. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C.: 

Sir : 1 have the honor to report that, in accordance with the collect¬ 
ors request, dated March 10, 1885, I appeared at his office on Fiiday, 
the 20th instant, and there met the surveyor and himself. The collector 
inquired if 1 had read your order to him respecting proceedings at the 
Barge Office, and was informed that 1 had. A discussion followed rel¬ 
ative to the proper method of conducting the investigation demanded 
by your order. Both the surveyor and myself favored an open exami¬ 
nation; but while the former desired the presence of representatives 
from any newspaper office, I advised that only agents of the Associated 
Press should be admitted. 

On the following day we met again, and I urged a thorough and pub¬ 
lic inquiry into the whole subject alluded to in your order. At this 
meeting the collector read a communication addressed to him by Dep¬ 
uty Collector Williams, making certain statements in regard to the 
conduct of business at the Barge Office. After I had commented upon 
this communication the collector turned it over to the surveyor with a 
request that he would reply to it if lie saw fit. 

Nothing turther has been done by me in pursuance of the inquiry de¬ 
sired by you until to-day, when, having met the collector in accordance 
with his request, I was surprised to learn that he had received an elab¬ 
orate report from the surveyor, which he desired me to read. As no 
joint proceedings had taken place in accordance with the terms ot ^sour 
order. I did not consider it incumbent upon me to read the report of the 

surveyor to the collector. 

The collector then read to me a letter which lie proposed sending to 
you • but as this letter only embodied his person hi opinions, without ref¬ 
erence to dataor authorities, 1 declined to unite in it, and stated to him 
that I would make an individual report to you. 

The subject of the investigation proposed by you has been freely dis- 



300 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


cussed by people in clubs, hotels, and other public places, and has like¬ 
wise filled many columns of the public press. Whether justly or not, 
many of our worthiest people believe that the methods of landing pas¬ 
sengers and treating their baggage is attended with delay and danger, 
and is open to gross extortions. While I believe that most of these 
charges are untrue, 1 cannot attach my signature to an official report 
which does not indicate the evidence upon which it is based. It does 
not appear to me that any action has taken place in pursuance of the 
inquiry desired by you, but I will submit to the Department some con¬ 
clusions based upon five years’ experience as surveyor of the port, and 
upon a general knowledge of the facts. 

In my judgment there are ample accommodations at the Barge Office 
except on those extraordinary occasions when many large steamers with 
heavy passenger lists arrive simultaneously. 

This occasional difficulty might be avoided if the surveyor were em¬ 
powered to permit, in case of absolute necessity, the landing of passen¬ 
gers and their effects at the steamer’s wharf. The force of inspectors 
is large enough to permit the assignment of a sufficient number to dis¬ 
charge this special duty when required. 

In regard to the transportation of passengers from steamer to wharf, 
my impression is that the work is carefully performed and that the 
vessels employed are well adapted to the purpose, and that the facili¬ 
ties furnished are superior to those enjoyed in any foreign country. 

I would, however, advise that the contract for distributing baggage 
should be given to one party, under heavy bonds and subject to the re¬ 
strictions of public carriers, to be selected by you, or perhaps given 
through advertisement to the lowest bidder. Such a contract should 
specify the charges authorized to be made. The Barge Office does not 
afford room for more than one company to transact this business. 

I can make no report upon the personal behavior of officers at the 
Barge Office, nor upon the subject of extortions practiced by them, be¬ 
cause the collector has called for no investigation on these points. It 
is certain that the pretext for extortion is much diminished since the 
wide liberty afforded by Judge Blatchford’s late decision, and I suspect 
that more is given in the shape of gratuities than as enforced fees. 
The proceedings are easily overlooked from the galleries of the Barge 
Office and improprieties can readily be detected. 

As the hour is late, and I desire this letter to reach you to-morrow, I 
am not able to pursue the subject at greater length. 

Very respectfully, 

CHARLES K. GRAHAM, 

Naval Officer. 


March 27 , 1885 . 

Hon. Wm. H. Robertson, 

Collector of Customs , New YorJc City , N. Y.: 

Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 26th instant relative to the 
investigation which you are making into the conduct of affairs of the 
Barge Office, and stating that you have submitted to the surveyor, with 
directions to give you his views thereon, certain suggestions relative to 
an improvement in the present conduct of the baggage express busi¬ 
ness. You also state that you believe that u an extended inquiry would 
develop only what is already manifest;” but that if it be the pleasure 
of the Department that persons shall be invited to appear and give tes¬ 
timony, you will promptly comply with such instructions, although, in 



REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 301 


your opinion, “the taking of testimony would naturally be tedious, 
and the parties interested in the present system would, perhaps, not 
be averse to having the investigation prolonged for their benefit.” 

In reply to these remarks, I beg to say that having placed the con¬ 
duct of this investigation entirely in your hands, and recognizing you 
as being responsible for the proper conduct of the customs service at 
your port, I do not at this time care to offer further suggestions. It is 
but proper to say, however, that in my opinion the course you have so 
far pursued is best calculated to attain the end desired. 

Very respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 16. 

Custom-House, New York, 

Collector’s Office , March 31, 1885. 

Sir: Eeferring to your letter of the 27th instant (just received), fur¬ 
ther relative to the treatment of passengers and their baggage when 
landed at the Barge Office in this city, I now transmit herewith a report 
iu the matter from the surveyor of the port, dated the 28th instant (re¬ 
ceived on the 30tb). 

I submit that the use of the Barge Office as a place for the examina¬ 
tion of the baggage of passengers arriving from abroad is in compli¬ 
ance with the statute. (See act of June 15, 1878, vol. 20, Statutes at 
Large, page 133.) 

I have in person visited the Barge-Office annex, and that it affords 
accommodations and conveniences for the orderly and decent examina¬ 
tion of baggage and for the personal comfort of passengers far superior 
to those given by steamship companies, when baggage was examined 
on their wharves, cannot, I am satisfied, truthfully be denied. More¬ 
over, a system and watchfulness can there be maintained for the pro¬ 
tection of the revenue and for the prevention of tampering with officers, 
while the examination on the wharves was fruitful of complaints not 
creditable to the Government. 

The giving to one express company u the exclusive privilege within 
the building of booking baggage for delivery” was without consultation 
with me, and, therefore, without my approval. The public inquiry sug¬ 
gested by the naval officer and the surveyor is not, to my mind, neces¬ 
sary to establish that such privilege is, as the people term it, “ a monop¬ 
oly.” That it is “ a monopoly” is quite manitest in itself. 

As stated in my letter to the surveyor of the 20th instant, arrange¬ 
ments should, in my judgment, be made which will give the passenger 
an “option” in the employment of an express for the transfer of bag¬ 
gage ; and to this end I propose that three representative and respon¬ 
sible local express companies, each, have a closed-in space near the exit 
just large enough for one man and a desk, at which shall be displayed 
the name of the company and its tariff of prices, the agents of the ex¬ 
press companies not to be allowed on the examining floor, but the bag- 
gageto be checked when, in its passage out, it reaches the stand of the 
employed company. 

I also propose that the representatives of express companies, bonded 
as common carriers, shall have stands inside the building, so that they 
may take charge of the baggage of passengers in transit to foreign ter- 



302 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ritories; and that to such companies shall be given the privilege of 
opening money exchanges for the accommodation of arriving passen¬ 
gers, and thus remove all necessity for appeals by passengers to cus¬ 
toms employes for the exchange of money. 

If to satisfy yourself of the feasibility of these suggestions you shall 
call upon the special agents, now sittiug in this city as a commission to 
investigate and report, I am satisfied that you will hftve from them an 
intelligent and unbiased expression of opinion. 

Another plan, if those suggested do not meet with favor, is to publicly 
invite proposals and give the privilege to the express company which 
shall make the lowest offer for the transfer of baggage. 

The transfer of baggage from the Quarantine to the Barge Office is by 
contract with the Government; and the surveyor reports that that serv¬ 
ice is satisfactorily performed. It has occurred to me that a change in 
that particular might be secured through Congress by an enactment that 
steamships shall land their passengers at the Barge Office. 

I also transmit herewith a memorandum on the subject from my 
deputy who is assigned to duty at the Barge Office. 

I have afforded the naval officer a perusal of this letter and its in¬ 
closures. He informs me that heproposesto address you on the subject. 

I return herewith the communication from Mr. J. C.Carbonell, which 
was referred to me by your indorsement thereon under date of the 27 th 
insta nt. 

I am, with high respect* your obedient servant, 

W. H. ROBERTSON, 

Collector. 


Hon. D. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


[ Enclosure.] 


New York, March 23, 1885. 


The Honorable Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washing ion, D . C.: 


Dear Sir : The many complaints about the exorbitant price charged for carrying 
baggage from the Barge Office to the residence of persons arriving into this city author¬ 
izes me to trouble yon in making the following offer, viz: I will take the baggage of 
passeugers arriving daily at the Barge Office to any place in the city soutlf of *59tli 
street, lor 25 cents per package not over 100 pounds. 

I have ten large wagons and six single ones, with sufficient hands to attend, and 
will begin at any time convenient to the custom-house service. 

Whereas the people coming is composed in its greater part of English, French, 
Spanish, and Italian and German, and I possess those languages, I consider myself 
not only useful, but convenient. 

An early answer will be thankfully received by, 

Yours, truly, 


J. C. CARBONELL, 


357 W. 44 th Street. 


[Endorsement.] 


Treasury Department, March 27, 1885. 

Respectfully referred to the collector of customs at New York for examination in 
connection with the pending investigation of the Barge Office and the transfer of 
baggage. 

Return of this paper is requested. 

D. MANNING, 

Secretary. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 303 


No. 17. 


Custom-House, New York, 

Collector's Office, April 4, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to my letter of the 31st ultimo relative to the treat¬ 
ment ot the baggage at the Barge Office in this city, I transmit herewith 
for your further information a printed copy of a communication on the 
subject addressed by Mr. John H. Starin, under date of November 25, 
1884, to the special committee on reform of the Cuamber of Commerce. 

Very respectfully, 


Hon. D. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


W. H. ROBERTSON, 

Collector. 


f Enclosure.! 

Starin’s City, River and Harbor Transportation Company, 

Principal Offices, Pier 18, N. R., 

Aew York, A ore mix r 25, 1834. 

Messrs. Jackson S. Sciiultz, Daniel C. Robbins, John R. Waters, 

Special Committee on Ilevenue Iteform: 

Gentlemen: Under dale of 10th of the present month, I received from the special 
committee on reveuue reform of the Chamber of Commerce a com indention, 
asking me to give my views upon the present method of landiug passengers and their 
baggage from ocean steamers arriving at this port. 

I take pleasure in complying with this request, not only from the standpoint of the 
Government contractor responsible lor one part of the system, but as a member of the 
Chamb r of Commerce of many years’ standing, and as a business man whose interest 
in the harbor of New York and the commerce of the port is perhaps quite as large as 
that of any other individual. 

In the outset, it may not be amiss to draw the attention of the committee to the 
fact that for many years prior to the establishment of the existing system there was 
loud and continued complaint in regard to the old method of landing passengers and 
their baggage on the piers of the various steamship companies. It was claim* d—and, 
as there can be no doubt, justly claimed—that the docks in question were in every 
respect unfitted for the reception of first-class passengers and the examination of their 
baggage. The piers referred to were then, as they are now, at all times lumbered 
with freight, cotton, bacon, rags, oil, pig-iron, indeed coarse merchandise of every 
description. They were also crowded with teams, thronged with ’longshoremen, were 
damp and dirty at all seasons of the year, and during the fall, winter, and early spring, 
cold, dark, and positively unhealthy. 

Upon these piers, situated at various points more or less inaccessible to the resi¬ 
dence aud business centers of the city, passengers were obliged to land, and frequently 
to remain for hours broiling in the summer sun, freezing in the cold of winter, while 
an inadequate number of inspectors (inadequate, because the force was widely scat¬ 
tered) examined their baggage. 

During such examination it is matter of record that valuable dresses and other 
belongings of passengers were from time to time soiled and seriously damaged by fall¬ 
ing out of opened trunks upon the frequently wet and always damp and dirty docks. 
In addition to these crying objections, there were others which, from the G iverument 
standpoint, were regarded as even more serious. You are doubtless as familiar with 
the objections to which I refer as I am. To them it is not ray province to retV r in detail. 
Their discussion must be left to the well-informed officers of the customs who are 
thoroughly familiar with tho subject. 

To do away with these and various other complaints, Congress, in 1879, passed a 
bill which, if I am not mistaken, was warmly supported by the Chamber of Commerce, 
and which provided for the erection of the new Barge Office at the Battery, and di¬ 
rected that the baggage of cabin passengers on incoming ocean steamers should be 
transferred from Quarantine to that Government office and there examined. 

Under the provisions of this bill the Treasury 7 Department during the last spring 
advertised for bids from those in a position to do the woik of transferring baggage, 
and incidently of such passengers as desired to accompany their baggage to the barge 
office. My superintendent of steamboats, during my 7 absence from the city, bid 
among others. His bid being the lowest the contract was given to me, 


304 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In regard to the terms of the agreement thus made, I find that many people hold 
the most laughable, and not a few people the most idiotic, notions. I have seen it 
stated, for instance, that Mr. Starin was to receive $1.65 for every man, woman, and 
child who entered the port of New York, and that his profits would be not less than 
a half million dollars a year. 

The fact is, that I am not paid one penny for transporting the cabin passengers, 
with whom alone I have to do. Of such passengers it is estimated that 50,000 will 
arrive at the Barge Office during this year—this is a liberal estimate—and as the 
average number of pieces of baggage brought by each passenger is two and one-half, 
for each piece of which (excluding hand-baggage carried by passengers or their serv¬ 
ants) the Government is under contract to pay 67 cents, it will readily be seen that 
the gross sum—I repeat, the total sum which I am likely to receive—cannot greatly 
exceed $80,000, and it may be very much less. 

I may say in jiassing that I am informed the Government will, by the concentra¬ 
tion of inspectors and the increase in duties collected under the new system, save a 
sum much in excess of this. As to my so-called “immense profits,” let me draw your 
attention to the fact that under the terms of my contract it was originally contem¬ 
plated that the work of transfer should be dono with barges and tugs. But this 
was found impracticable, and I have been compelled to place at the service of the 
Government three and sometimes four boats, and now have in that service three 
large, strong, and seaworthy steamers, the “ Laura M. Starin,” the “Thomas Hunt,” 
and the “Pomona,” which, because of their great extent of deck room forward, have 
been selected from my fleet as being particularly well adapted for the work of trans¬ 
fer. 

They are each capable of carrying, uuder Government inspection, from 800 to 1,000 
persons, and they represent a capital of $120,000 actually*invested—invested, it may 
be well to a<id, in steamboat property, which depreciates, as is well known to all 
those familiar with the subject, at the rate of not less than 20 per cent, per year. 

The exigencies of the transfer service are such that my superintendents have found 
it necessary to keep these boats “fired up” and ready at a moment’s notice to meet 
incoming steamers—it being specially stipulated in my contract that between sunrise 
and sunset my boats shall meet without delay all foreign passenger steamers arriviug 
at Quarantine. The result, from a money stand-point, is such that I am by no means 
sure that my much talked-of Government contract will yield me even a small profit. 

There seems to be a general impression that about every steamer which is met by 
the contractor’s boats is loaded down with baggage. The exact opposite is the case. 
‘The great majority of arriving ships—which must be served, let it be noted, with as 
much care and dispatch as the “crack” Atlantic facers—bring less than fifty pieces 
of baggage each. 

Following is a list of several which brought less than twenty-two pieces each—not 
enough to pay for the wood used in keeping up the fires of the steamboats which met 
them. 


Date of 
arrival. 

Name of steamer. 

No. pieces of 
baggage. 

Aug. 30 

State of Alabama. 

21 

Sept. 6 

Alexandria. 

17 

9 

Ramon De Horea. 

21 I 

Oct. 13 

State of Alabama. 

15 

21 

Niagara . 

21 | 

25 

State of Pennsylvania... 

16 

28 

Neustorea. 

6 , 

28 

Teutonia. 

9 

31 

Riela. 

8 

Nov. 3 

Muriel. 

16 

6 

Athos. 

4 


Date of 
arrival. 

Name of steamer. 

No. pieces of 
baggage. 

Nov. 11 

Pascal . 

7 

12 

Katie . 

16 

14 

Principie. 

21 

14 

State of Nevada. 

18 

16 

Finance. 

11 

19 

Bristol. 

7 

20 

Bermuda. 

6 

20 

Sidonia. 

9 

22 

Nebraska . 

20 

23 

Scandinavian. 

3 

21 

Glenfyne. 

6 


To this table may bo added the statement that on fifteen days during the past two 
months there were no arrivals of passenger steamers. Yet my boats were obliged to 
be fully manned and “fired” upon those days as upon others, ready for business which 
did not come. » 

When these figures are taken into account; when the great risk of navigation is 
considered; when it is remembered that I am responsible for all baggage which is re¬ 
ceived on my boats; that I am liable for all duties which may be lost to the Govern¬ 
ment on stray baggage—fortnuately not one piece has yet been lost—that I am under 
a penal bond of $50,000 to carry out my agreement to the letter, it will be seen that 
my contract is not quite the “bonanza” which people with vivid imaginations, who 
know nothing about the matter, seem to believe. So much for that part of the subject. 

Looking at the Barge Office system from the standpoint of a citizen of New York, 







































REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OR THE TREASURY. 305 

largely interested in harbor transportation, I am most emphatic in niv belief that it 
is a very great improvement upon the old system. 

It is not yet by any means perfect—it needs several additions to make it perfect— 
i e _ S . lt if a £ re at success so far as it has gone. Passengers are now trans- 


• „ ' 1 • i • .1, —; cvljkl ill vriuioi VVCli-utJitLtJU YVailr 

in 0 -room, which is especially adapted for the purpose, and which has, with three ex¬ 
ceptions, been found more than large enough for the business to be done. The excep¬ 
tions were occasioned by an unprecedented rush of passengers at the very height of 
the season, and it is a question in my mind whether the confusion which resulted 
would have been less had these passengers been conveyed to the steamship piers, 
lake the case ot the City of Rome, for instance. That mammoth steamer arrived 
here on August 31, with 626 passengers. 

It was claimed that the Barge Office was not large enough to accommodate this 
Pf er 41, North River, one-half of which the agents of the steamer City 
ot Rome rent from me, and to which the ship under the old system would have taken 
her passengers—there to mix them with trucks, railroad freight, cotton bales, and 
3o0 longshoremen—is not in its entirety nearly so large as the Barge Office. 

Still another advantage of the new system must be borne in mind. 

Under the old arrangement it was not possible to examine the baggage of ships 
after sunset. Such vessels were compelled to lie in the stream with their passengers 
until morning. Every one who has returned frequently from Europe can recall more 
than one such experience. Now the passengers and baggage of every ship which 
passes the health officer are on the same evening transferred to the Barge Office. 

The following may serve as examples: On August 31 the City of Rome arrived at 
Quarantine 4.30 p. in., could not possibly have been made fast to her dock before 6.30 
p. in. (sunset 6.34 p. m.), and custom-house officers would have refused to examine 
baggage. Under new*, system passengers were allowed to land and leave with their 
baggage on the same evening. 

September 19, the Queen, with 102 passengers, arrived at quarantine 5 p. m., could 
not liave been docked until 6.30 p. m. (sunset, 6.03 p. m.), and passengers would have 
been obliged to stay on board all night. Under new system they were all passed the 
same evening. 

September 20 the Germanic, with 195 passengers, arrived at Quarantine 5.30 p. m., 
could not have been docked until 7 p. m. (sunset 6.01 p. m.), passengers would have 
been obliged to remain on board all night. Under new system they were allowed 
to land and leave for their homes same evening. 

October 12 the Arizona, with 200 passengers, arrived at Quarantine 4.30 p. m., 
could not have been docked until 6.30 p. m. (sunset 5.25 p. m.), and passengers would 
have been obliged to remain onboard all night. Under new system they were passed 
with their baggage same evening. 

October 26 the Orinoco, with eighteen passengers, arrived at quarantine 4.50 p.m., 
could not have been docked until 6.30 p. m. (sunset 5.04 p. m.), passengers would 
have been obliged to remain on board all night. Under the new system they were 
all, with their baggage, out of the Barge Office at ten minutes past 6 o’clock. 

November 16 the Alaska, with 126 passengers, arrived at Quarantine 4.30 p. m., 
could not have reached her dock until after 6 p. m. (sunset 4.41 p.m.), and pas¬ 
sengers would have been obliged to remain on board all night. Under the new sys¬ 
tem all the passengers, with their hand baggage, were passed at 5.50 p. m. In ad¬ 
dition to these cases, if space permitted, many others of the same character might be 
cited. 

I may also draw your attention to the fact that first-class passengers coming from 
infected ports, as from Paris, for instance, need not now remain on the quarantined 
ship until sent for by the steamship companies’ tugs, as was formerly the case, but can 
come to the city on the transfer boats as soon as passed by the doctor. Still further is 
to be noted that there is now no delay to passengers caused by waiting for the unweildy 
Atlantic steamers to get to dock. It frequently happens that from one to three hours 
are consumed in this task, and I have known it to take five hours. Indeed, I have in 
my mind the case of one famous ship of a great line which arrived about five weeks 
ago, and whose passengers were lauded in the Barge Office in tw r o hours and fifty-five 
minutes after they arrived at Quarantine. Despite this expedition, it was complained 
by some that thej r were delayed by the new system. As a matter of fact, the ship 
upon which they came, because of a strong flood-tide, did not succeed in getting to 
her dock until two hours and forty minutes after all her passengers had left the Barge 
Office with their baggage. Had they remained on the steamer their baggage would 
not have passed until next day. A number of such instances could be cited. Indeed, 

I am assured that under the new system there is in every case a gain in the time of 
landing and examining baggage of from one to four hours. 

I am also informed that there is a very great advantage to the steamship companies 


306 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


in being able to get to work unloading the moment the ship is docked. Mr. Louis Do 
Bebian, of the Compagnie G6n6rale Transatlantique , has informed me that the saving 
to his line in this direction amounts to thousands of dollars a year. I am informed 
that Mr. R. J. Cortis, of the White Star Line, and other steamship agents, are warm 
advocates of the new system. I also know from my own department of lighterage of 
foreign freight, which delivers on an average upwards of 1,000 tons a day to steamers 
destined for foreign ports, and which receives from them on their return about 1,200 
tons a day, that because of the fact that the steamship docks are no longer hampered 
with incoming passengers, there is much greater expedition in the receipt and deliv¬ 
ery of shipments. 

These are, in my opinion, some of the advantages of the Barge-Office system. As I 
have said, I think it is a success. Still there can be no doubt that it may be improved. 
To this end I would suggest that the examination-room be enlarged in the manner 
which has already, as I understand, been recommended to the Department at Wash¬ 
ington by the surveyor of the port, and especially that greater facilities be offered 
incoming passengers to meet their waiting friends. 

So improved, I believe that the new system of landing passengers and their bag¬ 
gage would be as perfect, as free from annoyance, as any system can be. 

I have the honor to be, &c., very respectfully, yours, 

JOHN H. STARIN. 


No. 18. 


Treasury Department, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington , D. Of, April 14, 1885. 


Collector of Customs, 

New York, N. Y.: 

Sir : I liave to request that you will have prepared and forwarded to 
this Department a statement showing— 

First. The comparative cost of inspecting passengers’ baggage at 
your port before and since the establishment of the Barge Office, tak¬ 
ing as a basis of comparison the period since its establishment and the 
average of four corresponding periods in the four years previous to its 
establishment. 

Second. A comparison of the number of inspectors employed during 
the same periods. 

Third. If possible, a comparison of the number of passengers landed 
during the same period. 

Fourth. A comparison of the amount of duties collected on baggage 
under the old and new systems; and, 

Fifth. Date of opening of Barge Office. 

V ery respectfully, 


C. S. FAIRCHILD, 

Acting Secretary . 


No. 19. 

Custom-House, New York, 
Collectors Office , April 24, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your communication of the 14th instant, 
relative to the comparative expense of examining passengers’ baggage, 
before and since the establishment of the Barge Office. 

I herewith transmit a report of the surveyor, which, as it covers all 
the inquiries of your letter, seems to require no comment from me, ex¬ 
cept to refer to his statement that no separate record is kept in his 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 307 


office of the duties collected upon baggage ordered to the public stores 
for appraisement, and to add that no record is kept anywhere from 
which such data can be obtained. 

Very respectfully, 

W. H. ROBERTSON, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

(Secretary of the Treasury. 


Custom House, New York, 
Surveyor’s Office , April 21, 1885. 

Sir: The Department letter dated April 14, 1885, relative to the 
expense of examining passengers’ baggage, having been referred to 
me April 16,1 have to submit a tabulated statement embracing the pe¬ 
riod from the date when a portion of passengers’ baggage was first ex¬ 
amined at the Barge Office—to wit, August 27, 1884, to and including 
March 15, 1885, and for corresponding periods in four previous years, 
when all baggage was landed on the steamship wharves—viz : 


August 27 to April 15. 

Number of 
steamships 
with 

passengers. 

Number of 
passengers. 

Duties 

collected. 

Packages 
sent to 
public store 
for appraise¬ 
ment, &c. 

Packages 
sent to 
seizure room 
for investi¬ 
gation. 

All wharves: 

1880-81. 

789 

30,225 
36, 574 
34,423 
40, 580 

$111,387 68 
102,470 31 
80, 283 79 
80, 078 12 

511 

36 

1881-82. 

844 

690 

23 

1882-83. 

875 

831 

25 

1883- 84. 

812 

1790 

83 


Barge Office: 

1884-’85. 

482 

27, 627 

11, 298 

59, 759 00 

11,785 99 

820 

8 

New Jersey wharves: 

1884-’85. 

323 

253 

3 




805 

38,925 

71,544 99 

1, 073 

11 


The increase in the number of packages sent from the wharves in 
1882-’83 and 1883-’84 to the appraisers’ stores was partially caused by 
the greater number of packages brought by passengers in transit to 
foreign countries, and because a more strict- compliance with article 94 
of the Customs Regulations of 1883 (catalogue No. 952) was necessary 
for the proper examination of packages. The amount of duties collected 
upon merchandise from baggage appraised at the public store cannot be 
stated, as no record thereof is kept in this office. 

As will be seen from the foregoing statement, the amount of duties 
collected from* passengers’ baggage in the period from August 27, 
1884, to April 15, 1885, inclusive, has decreased from previous years 
during the same period, and for the reason that the Department, by 
circular dated April 29, 1884 (S. S. 6317), promulgated the decision of 
the Supreme Court in the Astor case, which practically admits free of 
duty all wearing apparel, old or new, brought by a passenger. Whether 
the wearing apparel conforms in all respects to the several require¬ 
ments of the Department circular cannot be ascertained except by the 
general oath of the passenger attached to his entry of baggage, or by his 
answers to such questions as are put to him by the inspectors or ap- 






















308 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


praising officers. Very few passengers admit that the wearing apparel 
in baggage does not conform to the decision of the Supreme Court. I 
am informed that the quantity of new wearing apparel brought by pas¬ 
sengers (and passed “free of duty” under the aforesaid decision) has 
greatly increased. 

As to the comparative cost of inspecting passengers 7 baggage before 
and since the establishment of the Barge Office, I state that the Depart¬ 
ment has expended, from 27th August to April 15, inclusive, the fol¬ 
lowing sums, to wit: 


To Starin for transfer of baggage. $52,217 79 

For laborers employed in handling baggage at the Barge Office. 7,883 01 


60,100 80 

No other specific payments have been made for the examination of 
baggage; none of the inspectors of this port have been exclusively en¬ 
gaged in performing this duty. All inspectors who are “discharging 
officers” (Kev. Stat., Sec. 2875) report at the Barge Office for assign¬ 
ment to vessels; they come and go every hour in the day; but there is 
an average number of 30 “ waiting for assignment.” This average is not 
constant, and varies according to the daily and hourly arrival of ves¬ 
sels. In 1884 the average daily arrivals of steamships was 6, nearly, 
and of sailing vessels 10, nearly. To promptly provide officers for ves¬ 
sels arriving, ten of the inspectors “waiting,” are, by rotation, placed 
upon what is called the “posted list,” and remain subject to immediate 
call, until assigned to a vessel; and as each is assigned, others in order 
are added to the list. All other inspectors “waiting for assignment” 
are subject to detail for the examination of baggage; and as many are 
detailed to each vessel arriving at wharves, as is supposed to be suffi¬ 
cient. In case a sufficient number is not available at the Barge Office, 
messengers are sent to district or other officers to report for this tem¬ 
porary duty. For the examination of baggage at the Barge Office, all 
inspectors in the building, whether “ posted,” “ waiting for a-ssignment,” 
or “making out returns,” are available for this temporary duty. 

It will be seen that the examination of baggage is an incidental duty 
to be performed by inspectors when not otherwise assigned, and that 
it forms only a portion of the daily employment of an inspector. A 
comparison of the cost of inspecting baggage by inspectors cannot 
therefore be made. 

If the second question in the Department letter refers to the whole 
number of inspectors employed at this port during the period stated, 
I state the average number was as follows: In 1880-’8l, 230; in 1881- 
’82, 284; in 1882-’83, 296; in 1883-’84, 310; in 1884-’85, 312. 

I return the Department letter referred to. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES L. BENEDICT, 

Surveyor, 

Hon. Wm. H. Robertson, 

Collector, 





REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 309 


No. 21. • 

MEMORANDA OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSES OF BARGE OFFICE. 


Force employed in the United States Barge Office, New York City. Appropriation 11 for pay 

of assistant custodians and janitors” 


Designation. 

No. 

Compensation. 

Aggregate. 

Total. 

(a.) Salaries. 





Assistant custodian. 

1 

$1, 500 per annum 

$1, 500 


Engineer. 

1 

1, 200 per annum 

1, 200 


Firemen. 

2 

60 per month 

1,440 


Cleaners. 

3 

60 per month 

2,160 


Doormen. 

2 

60 per month 

1,440 


Janitrix. 

1 

60 per month 

720 






$8, 460 

(b.) Incidental expenses. 





Removing ashes and rubbish. 



52 


Washinglowels... 



120 


Removing ice and snow. 



40 






212 

Grand total. . 




8, 672 






Appropriation “ fuel, lights, water, and miscellaneous items.” 



1883. 

1884. 

1885. 

Grand. 

aggregate. 


$473 00 
301 51 

$835 20 
690 52 

$745 47 
l, 290 90 
135 57 

$2, 053 67 
2, 282 93 
373 70 



115 00 

123 13 

Miscellaneous__________ 

306 80 

137 00 

384 23 

828 03 


Total. 

1,196 31 

1,785 85 

2, 556 17 

5,538 33 



Appropriation “ furniture, and repairs of furniture.” 



1883. 

1884. 

1885. 

Grand 

aggregate. 

Office furniture—desks, &c. : . 

Miscellaneous office furniture—carpets, cuspidors, &c. 

$3, 676 03 
860 17 
943 38 

$771 68 

$681 75 
130 75 
728 20 

$5,129 46 
990 92 
1, 673 58 

- _ _ _____ 


5, 481 58 

771 68 

1,540 70 

7, 793 96 



Amount paid John H. Starinfrom August 27,1884t, to February 15, 1885, under contract 

for transportation of baggage, New York. 


August, 1884 . $‘2, 336 96 

September, 1884 . 13,386 60 

October, 1884 . 10,866 06 

November, 1884-. 6,419 27 

December, 1884. 4,811 94 

January, 1885 . 2,859 56 


40,680 39 

February (1 to 15), 1885 . 2,369 79 


Total..... 43,050 18 




































































310 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Supplies furnished United States Barge Office, New York, furniture and repairs of same. 


Date. 


Articles. 


Amount. 


Total. 


FIRST FLOOR. 


1883. 
Jan. 25 


May 1 


8 three-light chandeliers, at $22. 

2 six-light chandeliers, at $37.50. 

1 four-iight chandelier... 

4 one-liglit hall chandeliers, at $7.75. 

3 two-light hall chandeliers, at $3.25. 

4 one-light brackets, at $3.60. 

2 revolving stools, at $3 each. 

7 settees, No. 25, at $23 each. 

2 cabinet standing desks, No. 27, A. B., at $120 each 

7 wardrobes, No. S. 28, at $45.50 .-. 

1 prescription case, No. S. 30 . 

4 revolving stools, No. 23, at $12. 


$176 00 
75 00 
25 00 
31 00 
9 75 
14 40 
6 00 
161 00 
240 00 
318 50 
134 50 
48 00 


908 00 


SECOND FLOOR. 


10 three-light chandeliers, at $22 
3 four-light chandeliers, at $25 .. 
2 two-light chandeliers, at $3.25 . 
8 one-light chandeliers, at $7.75 . 


220 00 
75 00 
6 50 
62 00 


CELLAR AND ATTIC. 


Mar. 1 
May 1 


50 one-light brackets, at 53 cents. 

1 dozen smoke-bells.. 

8 dozen cut globes, at $3.50. 

1 dozen cut globes . 

24 ball-joints, at $1.50. 

3 dozen cuspidors, at $2.40. 

2 door-mats, 17" x 35", at $12 per dozen. 

4 door-mats, 4' x 6', at $12 each. 

6 door-mats, 3' x 4', at $6 each.. 

2 door-mats, 3' x 6', at $4.50 each.. 

60 congressional chairs, at $9.80 each. 

6 table desks. No. 1 a , at $28.50 each. 

3 tables, No. 1 B, at $33 each. 

1 table, No. 2 a ... .. . 

4 tables, No. 3 a, at $42.5 each.. 

6 water-cooler stands, No. 4, at $14.50 each. 

1 letter-press stand, No. 5, at $18 each.. 

5 desks, No. 6, at $77 each. 

2 desks, No. 7, at $96 each..... . 

1 desk, No. 9. 

5 office lounges, No. 12, at $53.50 each. 

36 office chairs, No. 14ct, at $5.75 each. 

12 upholstered office chairs, No. 18a, at $9.50 each. 

1 book-rack, No. 22 .. 

36 t V feet iron railing, at $3.20. 

1 water-cooler, 6 gallons . 

3 water-coolers, 2 gallons, at $2.. 

2 water-coolers, 3 gallons, at $2.50. 

4 umbrella-stands, at $3.75. 

1 bulletin-board, 6 by 6 feet.. 

2 bulletin-boards. 3 by 6 feet, at $6. 

4 rollers for towels, at 50 cents each. 

2 pine cases for stationery room. 

1 walnut and glass counter, screen, and door, including desks, clos¬ 
ets, &e., for boarding officers' room. 

] mirror glass, 24" x 30". ” ^ 

1 mirror glass, 4' x 2' 6". ” 

1 operating table, 2' 6" x 6 feet. . 

1 head-block. 

1 walnut case for paper files. 

42 yards linoleum, at $1 per yard. 

3 door-mats, at $3.50 each .. 

Repairing 3 tables, at $8 each... 


26 50 
3 00 
28 00 
5 00 
36 00 


7 20 
24 00 
48 00 
36 00 
9 00 


588 00 
171 00 
99 00 
43 00 
170 00 
87 00 
18 00 
385 00 
192 00 
124 00 
367 50 
207 00 
123 50 
12 00 


115 47 

4 00 

6 00 

5 00 
15 00 
12 00 
12 00 

2 00 
107 00 

246 50 
15 00 
45 00 
18 00 

3 75 
52 00 
42 00 
10 50 
24 00 


19 

June 3 


80 shades, blue opaque cloth, Hartshorn rollers. 

Amount on account of 17 ball-joints, at $1.50 each _ 

Less 4 1-light brackets not used, Mitchell, Yance & Co 


25 50 
2 12 


15 


17 window-awnings, at $5 each. 

4 large window-awnings, at $10 each 


85 00 
40 00 


$793 15 


124 00 


2,487 00 


735 20 
140 02 

23 38 


125 0Q 





















































































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 311 


Supjjlies furnished United States Barge Office, New York, cfe. —Continued. 


Date. 

Articles. 

Amount. 

Total. 

1884. 
Juno 15 

5 feet rubber hose, at 15 cents per foot. 

$0 75 

102 00 
26 85 


12 

Running pipe on ceiling for chandeliers and bronzing same, 22 days’ 
labor, $99; car-fare, $3.. 



Material used for same. 




$129 60 

May 16 

Altering and laying 75 vards Brussels carpet, at 10 cents. 

7 50 

8 53 

Altering and laying 133 yards Brussels carpet, at 5 cents, $6.65; 
girl’s time sewing same, $ 1.88 . 




16 03 

Aug. 9 
Sept. 25 

Laying 41 yards carpet, at 5 cents. 

2 05 

3 00 

3 dozen chair casters, screws and washers. 



5 05 

Oct. 29 

1 black walnut table, No. 1A . 

25 00 

1 black walnut table, No. IB. 

25 00 



1 desk, No. 6. 

74 04 



6 office chairs, No. 14A. 

22 80 
13 50 



1 book-rack, No. 22.J 

160 30 

290 00 

1884. 
Mar. 31 

20 tables (white pine) each 10 feet long, 3 feet wide, 2 feet 6 inches 
high.. 


July 30 

Repairing and covering with enameled cloth 1 large double table... 


8 00 

7 yds. linoleum laid. .A. 

7 00 


1 step-ladder for stationery room. 

3 00 




10 00 

Aug. 14 
to Oct. 

Running pipe for reflectors and lanterns. 

221 00 

8 lantern 1)rackets, at $6. 

48 00 


16. 

1 84-inch reflector, no keys.. . 

96 00 


3 60-inch reflectors, no keys, at $51. 

153 00 



1 15-foot alcohol torch. 

7 20 



46 two light-iron brackets per sketch, at $2.50. 

115 00 



14 four light-iron pendants per sketch, at $3.50. 

49 00 



1 1^-inch gas cock, with key and labor. 

8 00 



Extending two brackets for corners. 

3 00 



1 two-light lantern difference in exchange. 

28 00 




728 20 

33 35 

July 30 

Removing ice-box from annex building and rebuilding same in 
collar. . 


Sept. 29 
Oct. 7 

3 black walnut desks, as per specifications, at $26. 


78 00 

4 water-coolers (4 gallons each), porcelain lined (nickel faucet). 


19 40 

Sept. 18 
20 

6 dozen continental wood arm office chairs, at $21 per dozen. 


126 00 

2 walnut standing desks, at $12, $24; 2 screw stools, at $3-25, $6.50 . 
8 five-feet settees $25, at $3 per foot. 


30 50 

Dec. 29 


120 00 

3 eight-feet settees $25, at $3 per foot.. 


72 00 


6 six-feet settees $25, at $3 per foot. . 


108 00 

Nov. 24 

Repairing, bracing, and blocking, thereby strengthening 20 large 
pine tables in use in Barge Office, at $3.40 each... 


68 00 

1885. 
Feb. 5 

2 mirrors, at $10.75, $21. 50; March 13, 1 rattan lounge, $17. 50. 


39 00 

Mar. 13 

2 walnut folding screens 5 feet high by 7J inches long. 


43 75 

1 black walnut desk No. 6. 


56 50 

Aug. 1, 
1883, to 
Mar.24, 
1885. 

1 


316 33 

j-Carpets furnished.............4...... 





7,793 96 


Supplies furnished United States Barge Office, New York—fuel, light, and water. 


Date. 


Articles. 


Amount. 


Total. 


1883. 
Jan. 25 
27 


100 (gross) tons Lehigh egg coal, at $4.73 .. 

5 gallons sperm oil, at $1.50. 

10 dozen extra corn brooms, at $3.50. 

10 dozen lamp-wicks, at 7$ cents. 

1 dozen hair dusters. 

1 dozen mop handles. 

12 dozen cotton mops, at $4 per dozen. 

£ dozen turkey dusters at $12.60 per dozen 

1 dozen oak pails . 

£ dozen chamois skins, at $6.50 dozen. 

2 dozen tumblers, at 75c. per dozen. 

^ dozen galvanized iron ash-cans, at $50,40 


$7 50 
35 00 
75 
4 00 
6 00 
48 00 
6 30 
8 00 
3 25 
1 50 
12 60 


$473 00 















































































312 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


Suplie8 furnished United States Barge Office, New York } Sfc. —Continued. 


Date. 


1884. 

July 27 1 box castile soap. 

1 box brown soap. 

5 pounds sponge, at $3.50 ... 
£ dozen dust pans, at $1. 

2 watchman’s lanterns, at $3 
4 dozen scrub-brushes, at $2. 


Articles. 


May 22 


1 machinist’s vise. 

1 dozen assorted files. 

1 machinist’s hammer. 

6 assorted chisels. 

1 pipe vise. 

1 pair extension tongs. 

- do. 

6 pounds valve packing. 

20 pounds waste. . 

8 gaskets... 

2 cast steel scoops. 

1 set fire-irons....... 

1 iron wheelbarrow. 

2 oil-cans, $1; 1 quire emery cloth, $1. 

6 galvalized iron ash-cans, $24 ; 1 pair steel gas-pliers, $1.50 

1 alligator wrench, $2; 3 screw-wrenches, $4. 

1 pair chain tongs. 


30 

June 30 


Ice for May, 13 345 pounds, at 10 cents per 100 pounds, $13.34; 

( June 30) 16,660 pounds for June, $16.66. 

1 ice-box for Barge Otfice. 


1883. 

Mar. 31 Gas from January 2 to March 31,1883 
June 30 Gas from March 31 to June 30,1883... 


Sept. 29 
Dec. 31 
1884. 
Mar. 31 
June 30 


Gas from June 30 to date... 
Gas from October 1 to date 

Gas from January 1 to date 
Gas from April 1 to date... 


1883. 

Dec. 31 76,450 pounds ice, from July 1 to date_ 

1884. 

June 30 46.695 pounds ice, from January 1 to date 


Oct. 24 994 tons coal (egg size), at $4.64 

1884. 

Feb. 21 80| tons coal (egg size), at $4.64 


1883. 

Sopt. 25 Stocks and dies for pipe, £ inch to 2 inches.. 

Cutters for pipe. 

1 set machine stocks, dies, and taps. 

1 adjustable tap-wrench ... . 

1 brace and bitts, and 8 assorted twist-drills 

Forge and anvil ... . 

3 pairs tongs and 2 chisels . 

1 shovel and poker. 

1 solder pot and ladle.. 

1 rip saw, $2; 4 wood chisels, $2. 

1 pair side-cutting pliers. 

2 pounds solder and soldering copper. 

3 hand-lamps and 2 pounds wickiag. 

1 hand vise. 


1885. 
Mar. 31 
1884. 
Dec. 31 
Feb. 25 
Jan. 17 


Gas from July 1,1884, to date. 

77,470 pounds ice, from July 1 to date 

Janitors’ supplies to date. 

Fuel to date. 

Weighing fuel. 


Total 


Amount. 


$4 

00 

6 

00 

17 

50 


50 

6 

00 

8 

00 

15 

00 

9 

00 

1 

00 

3 

00 

8 

00 

1 

75 

2 

75 

9 

00 

2 

40 

6 

50 

3 

00 

12 

00 

20 

00 

2 

00 

25 

50 

6 

00 

5 

00 

30 

00 

85 

00 


Total. 


$174 90 


131 90 


115 00 


156 38 
145 13 


99 68 
218 24 


301 51 


224 78 
147 82 


690 52 


76 44 


46 69 
461 68 


123 13 


373 52 


30 00 
10 00 
15 00 
5 00 
8 00 
43 00 
10 00 
5 00 
1 50 
4 00 
1 00 

1 50 

2 00 
1 00 


835 20 


137 00 


1,290 90 

135 57 
384 23 
711 67 
33 80 


5, 538 ?* 
















































































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 313 


(No. 22.) 

Department of Justice, 

Office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C., April 22, 1885. 

Sir : I have considered the question of shipment of passengers’ bag¬ 
gage under the provisions of the immediate-transportation act of June 
10, 1880. 

Section 1 of this act provides that when merchandise imported into 
certain named ports appears by the invoice or bill of lading and man¬ 
ifest of the importing vessel to be consigned to and destined for 
certain other named ports the collector of the port of arrival shall allow 
such merchandise to be shipped immediately. 

This action is mandatory. 

It will be seen that this shipment applies to goods which appear 
either by the invoice or bill of lading and manifest to be destined to 
one of the named ports. 

When there is an invoice by section 2 the collector of the port of 
arrival retains as a record a copy of the invoice and an entry not sworn 
to, whereon the duties are estimated, and thereupon delivers the goods 
to the common carrier provided for in section 3. 

If there is an invoice by section 4 it must be in quadruplicate with 
the consular certificate provided for in section 2858, E. S. 

While the act is explicit that goods without an invoice but which 
appear by the bill of lading and manifest to be destined to the named 
ports shall be shipped at once, section 2 does not specify what shall 
be done in such cases before such shipment, and therefore the question 
arises whether imported personal baggage can be so transported. 

I think it can. 

Such baggage is merchandise, because by statute goods capable of 
being imported are merchandise. Personal baggage must, therefore, on 
importation be entered, but by section 2799, E. S., it may be entered 
without an invoice on taking the oath therein prescribed. 

By the subsequent act of June 22, 1874, the right to enter personal 
baggage, as also goods not exceeding one hundred dollars in value, 
without a certified invoice is recognized. 

Passengers’ baggage, however, will appear, by virtue of the provisions 
of law, on the manifest of the importing vessel. 

Section 2806, E. S., provides that no merchandise shall be brought into 
the United States unless the master has such manifest which, among 
other things, must specify the passengers and description of baggage 
belonging to each. 

Keeping this section in view, the reason is seen why it was provided 
in section one of the immediate transportation act that merchandise des¬ 
tined by the manifest and bill of lading for a port other than that of 
arrival should be shipped thereto at once. 

A law may often require a thing to be done and fail to provide in 
detail how it shall be done. Especially is this true of customs laws 
when the details rest so largely on regulations. 

It will not be doubted that such a law must, if possible, be executed, 
and in the present case it can be fairly executed unt^r that general 
power which directs the Secretary of the Treasury to make rules not 
inconsistent with law for carrying out the provisions of the revenue 
laws, and to prescribe forms of entries, oaths, bonds, and other papers 
to be used in the enforcement of such laws. Section 251, E. S. 

There is, therefore, no practical difficulty in making a regulation to 


314 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


cover this case, which will fully protect the revenue and give a privi¬ 
lege to personal baggage which section 1 of the immediate transporta¬ 


tion act recognizes. 

The rule should be substantially as follows: 

When an entry of personal baggage provided for in section 2799, 
R. S., has been made, and it appears from the manifest or bill of 
lading that the baggage is destined to a port other than the port of 
arrival, the record to be retained by the collector under the immediate 
transportation act, shall be the entry and a certified extract from the 
manifest relating to passenger’s baggage. That thereupon the duties, 
if any, shall be estimated and the baggage delivered to the common 
carrier to be transported as provided in the act. 

The only difficulty in the present, ease arises from the fact that Con¬ 
gress did not detail the steps to be taken in the entry of such merchan¬ 
dise for immediate transportation. 

In cases of difficulty as to the construction of revenue laws the Sec¬ 
retary must decide, and his decision is conclusive and binding on all 
officers of the customs. (Section 2652, R. S.) 

Respectfully, 

A. McCUE, 

Solicitor of the Treasury. 


No. 23. 


[Circular.] 

Immediate transportation of passengers’ baggage without appraisement. 

1885. 1 

Department No. —. > 

Division of Customs. > 

Treasury Department, April 25, 1885. 
To COLLECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS : 

The immediate-transportation act of June 10, 1880, is held by this 
Department to apply to and cover passengers’ baggage imported into 
the ports named in section 1 of said act which shall appear by the 
manifest of the importing vessel to be destined to either of the ports 
specified in the seventh section of said act. 

The collectors of the ports named in said section 1 will allow such 
baggage to be shipped immediately to said ports mentioned in the sev¬ 
enth section of said act, upon a baggage entry thereof being made, in the 
form hereinafter prescribed, by the owners of said baggage, personally 
or by agent or consignee. 

Such entry shall be in triplicate and consist of a general description 
of the contents of the said baggage and its value, and each of said trip¬ 
licates shall have attached thereto an extract of the manifest of the 
importing vessel relating to the baggage set forth in said entry, certi¬ 
fied by the collector of customs or his deputy, one copy of which entry 
and a certified extract of the manifest shall be filed in the office of the 
collector of the port of entry as a permanent record. 

Thereupon the entry and the required extract of the manifest must be 
compared by the collector or his deputy, who will estimate the duties, 
if any, thereon, note the estimate on the face of the entry, and transmit 
the papers to the naval officer, if there is one, who will, by himself or 
deputy, make a similar comparison, estimate the duties, if any, and re* 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 315 

turn the papers to the collector with his estimate thereon. The entry 
shall be the following form: 


»*#**#* 


The entry having been completed, the subsequent proceedings as to 
shipment, transportation, and delivery shall in all particulars conform 
to the regulations of the Treasury Department of June 10, 1880, gov¬ 
erning the transportation of merchandise without appraisement. 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 24. 

[Compagnie G6n6rale Transatlantique, 6 Bowling Green, Louis de Bebian, agent. P. O. Box 200.] 

New York, June 22,1885. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , T>. G.: 

Sir : I beg leave respectfully to represent that the interests of this 
company are injuriously affected by the Barge Office system now in 
practice at this port. 

I find that we are constantly losing passengers by it. Many parties 
who would formerly purchase round-trip tickets now object to do so, 
giving as their reason the dislike they have to returning to their native 
shores and passing through what they are pleased to call the ordeal of 
the Barge Office. 

It is not for me to consider whether their objections are well founded, 
nor would it alter the fact. Their conclusions are arrived at, and their 
opinion of returning and passing through the Barge Office decided—the 
result is practical discrimination against our line, and a consequent loss 
of business to our company. 

The difficulty lies in the dislike of the traveling public to the sys¬ 
tem. My complaint is simply that the compelling us to land our pas¬ 
sengers and baggage at the Barge Office discriminates unjustly against 
us, the public refusing to return by our line, preferring to take other 
lines, by which they can avoid what they object to. 

I therefore respectfully request permission for our steamers to land 
their passengers and baggage at our own dock, and that the examina¬ 
tion of the same be conducted there as heretofore. 

I have the honor to remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

LOUIS DE BEBIAN. 


No. 25. 

[Canard Steamship Company (limited), Vernon H. Brown <fe Co., agents, 4 Bowling Green.l 

New York, June 22, 1885. 
The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. G.: 

Sir: Our experience with the workings of the Barge Office since its 
inception has thoroughly convinced us that the present system has led 




316 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


to a serious discrimination against some of the steamship lines who 
have been forced to adopt it. 

The great detention in transfer of passengers and baggage, with the 
vexatious delay and fatigue to which passengers have been subjected, 
has caused many of our patrons to cancel return engagements, and 
prevented others from purchasing round-trip tickets for the reason, as 
they frankly state that they prefer to land at Jersey Oiey or Hoboken 
rather than be subjected to the discomforts of the Barge Office route. 

We protest against this arbitrary act of the ^reasury Department, 
which is causing us serious loss, and beg to inquire if there is any law 
compelling us to transfer passengers at Quarantine or elsewhere. If 
not, we respectfully request that the order now in force be rescinded, 
that our ships may be permitted to land passengers and baggage at our 
own dock as formerly, and that the customs officers be instructed to 
there examine all baggage so landed. 

Respectfully, your obedient servants, 

VERNON H. BROWN & CO. 


(No. 26.) 


Treasury Department, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. ( 7 ., June 27, 1885. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury: 

Sir : In accordance with the directions contained in your letter of the 
18th instant, I proceeded to New York for the purpose of conferring with 
the agents of the several steamship companies in regard to transferring 
passengers and baggage at that port, and beg respectfully to submit the 
following report: 

The principal passenger lines which deliver their passengers and bag¬ 
gage at Quarantine to transfer boats, to be landed at the wharf of the 
BargeOffice, are the Cunard, White Star, French, Inman,Guion, National, 
and Anchor. 

In pursuing my inquiries in regard to these transfers, I first called 
upon Mr. Vernon H. Brown, the agent of the Cunard Line, which brought 
to the port of New York last year 10,788 passengers. Mr. Brown in¬ 
forms me that the passengers generally traveling by his line complain 
bitterly of the danger, fatigue, and vexatious delay to which they are 
subjected in having their baggage passed through the Barge Office., and 
numbers of his patrons have notified him that hereafter they will return 
from Europe by the steamships landing on the Jersey side rather than 
undergo what they term the ordeal of the Barge Office. 

Mr. Louis D. Bibian, the agent of the French line of steamships, 
which last year brought into the port 3,725 cabin passengers, and 
whose company is now building four more fine steamers of much larger 
size than their present ships for the passenger trade, also states that 
passengers by his line are bitterly opposed to the Barge Office, and for 
reasons similar to those given by Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Hurst, the agent of the National Line, stated that his experience 
with the Barge Office had been anything but satisfactory, and that there 
were many complaints from his passengers, but as three of his vessels 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 317 

are now chartered by the British Government his company has practi¬ 
cally gone out of the passenger trade. 

Mr. Cortis, the agent of the White Star Line, stated that while he 
would much prefer to have passengers by his line landed at the com¬ 
pands dock, rather than transfer them at Quarantine, to be landed at 
the Barge Office, should other companies be accorded that privilege, 
yet he had no particular fault to find with the Barge Office, and did not 
personally know of any complaints by passengers brought by his steam¬ 
ers. He said that the Barge Office relieved his company of the expense 
and trouble of landing their passengers at their own docks, and he 
therefore had no objection to the present arrangement. 

Mr. Underhill, agent of the Guion Line, had no fault to find with the 
Barge Office, and preferred landing his passengers there, because it was 
less troublesome than landing them at their own dock, and moreover 
saved some expense. He said, however, that the passengers generally 
complained of landing at the Barge Office. This company has withdrawn 
three of its ships, which will reduce its passenger trade to such an extent 
that it will make little or no difference where its passengers land. 

I did not call upon the agent of the Inman Line, because this company 
has arranged to land its passengers at the Pennsylvania Railway dock 
in Jersey City, and will soon give up their dock on the New York side. 
Of course this will place the company out of the jurisdiction of the 
Barge Office, and consequently they will have no further interest in it. 

I was unable to find Mr. Coverley, of the Anchor Line, but Mr. Brown 
of the Cunard Line, informed me that the Anchor Line would much 
prefer to laud their passengers at their own dock, in order to avoid the 
inconveniences and annoyances of the Barge Office. 

It will thus be seen that the Cunard, French, and White Star Lines 
will practically control the passenger trade of the lines now using the 
Barge Office, and that the Cunard and French lines are decidedly in 
favor of the old system of landing their passengers and baggage at 
their own docks; and that while the White Star Line is not opposed to 
the Barge Office, it desires the privilege of landing its passengers at 
its own dock, should such privilege be accorded to the other lines en¬ 
gaged in the passenger trade. 

i am satisfied, from my inquiries among these agents, that the trav¬ 
eling public generally are bitterly hostile to the Barge Office, and the 
steamship companies landing their passengers and baggage there feel 
that they are being unjustly discriminated against by the order permit¬ 
ting the North German Lloyds, Red Star, and Hamburg companies to 
discharge their passengers and baggage at their Jersey docks. 

I would therefore recommend that, in view of the expense of main¬ 
taining the Barge Office, say one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in 
round numbers, the danger, fatigue, and vexatious delays attending the 
transfer of passengers and baggage at Quarantine, that the permission 
to land their passengers and baggage at their own docks, asked for by 
the Cunard and French Steamship companies 7 applications inclosed be 
granted, and that the same privilege be accorded to the other steamship 
companies which now land their passengers and baggage at the Barge 
Office. Should this be granted, the sixty days’ (60) notice, provided for 
in the contract for receiving passengers and baggage at Quarantine, 
and delivering them at the Barge Office, should be given the contractor, 
and the collector should be directed to cause the necessary detail of 
officers to make the passenger baggage examinations required by law 
at the docks of the steamship companies. 


318 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


It is suggested that the Barge Office could be used for the storage of 
seized, unclaimed, and other goods in the custody of the collector. 

I am, very respectfully, 

L. G. MAKTIN, 
Supervising Special Agent. 


No. 27. 


Collector of Customs, 

New York: 


July 2,1885. 


Sir : The Department is in receipt of letters from the Cunard Steam¬ 
ship Company and the “Compagnie G6n6rale Transatlantique,” dated the 
22d ult., in which they ask that the steamships of said lines be per¬ 
mitted to land their passengers at their respective docks, as heretofore 
practiced, instead of transferring them at Quarantine or elsewhere, for 
the purpose of having the baggage transported to and examined at the 
Barge Office. Both companies represent that the present practice of 
transferring baggage at Quarantine and having it examined at the 
Barge Office results in great detention in the transfer of passengers and 
baggage, as well as unnecessary and vexatious annoyances, and that it 
seriously interferes with the regular business of these steamship lines, 
so much so that they state the passengers prefer to land at Jersey City 
or Hoboken rather than to be subjected to the discomforts of the Barge 
Office. v 

After careful investigation of the matter, and in view of these repre¬ 
sentations, I am of opinion that the application may properly be 
granted, and that the steamships of said liues may be allowed to land 
their passengers at Ihe docks of the said companies, respectively, and 
to have the baggage examined thereat. 

You will be governed accordingly, and see that proper examining offi¬ 
cers are detailed for the purpose of making such examination on the 
arrival of the steamers of these lines at their docks, in the same man¬ 
ner as was practiced prior to August last. 

Very respectfully, 


D. MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 28. 


Messrs. Yernon H. Brown & Co. f 

Cunard Steamship Company , 

No. 4 Bowling Green , New York : 

July 2, 1885. 

Gentlemen : In reply to your letter of the 22d ultimo, you are in¬ 
formed that the collector of customs at New York has been this day 
instructed to permit the steamships of your line to land their passengers 
at the dock belonging to said company, and to have the baggageexam- 
ined and passed thereat. 

Very respectfully, 


Assistant Secretary. 

(Similar letter to Louis Bebian, esq., No. 6 Bowling Green, New York.) 






REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 319 


No. 29. 


July 9, 1885. 


Collector of Customs, 

New York: 

Sir: Referring to Department’s letter to you of the 2d instant, con¬ 
cerning the landing of passengers and baggage at the docks, respect¬ 
ively, of the Cunard Steamship Company and theCompagnie G6n6rale 
Transatlantique, you are hereby authorized to extend the same privi¬ 
leges to any other steamship companies whose vessels arrive at your 
port and who may request permission to land their passengers and bag¬ 
gage at their own docks. 

You are also requested to take immediate action for the purpose of 
terminating the contract entered into between William H. Robertson, 
collector, and John H. Starin, in relation to the landing of passengers 
and baggage at the Barge Office in accordance with the terms of said 
contract, which reads “that this contract may be terminated by either 
party hereto, upon sixty days’ notice, for good and sufficient cause.” 

Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter and report your action 
thereunder. 

Very respectfully, 

D. MANNING, 

Secretary. 


No. 30. 


Custom-House, New York, 
Collector's Office , July 10, 1885. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th 
instant, and to report that I have this day furnished the surveyor with 
a copy thereof for his information and guidance, and also that I have 
this day notified Mr. John H. Starin that his contract for the transfer 
of passengers’ baggage from steamships to the Barge Office will be ter¬ 
minated at the expiration of sixty days from this date. 

Very respectfully, 

E. L. HEDDEN, 

Collector. 


Hon. D. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 31. 

Custom-House, New York, 
Collector's Office , July 15, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to my letter of the 10th instant, reporting action upon 
your instructions of the 9th instant, 1 transmit herewith a copy of my 
letter to Mr. John H. Starin relative to the termination of his contract 
for the transfer of passengers and baggage to the Barge Office. 

I also inclose a letter from Mr. Starin in reply, dated the 14th instant. 

Very respectfully, 

J E. L. HEDDEN, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. t 




320 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


(Endorsement.) 

Respectfully referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury for advice. 

C. S. FAIRCHILD, 

Assistant Secretary. 


[Enclosure.] 

Custom-House, New York, 
Collector’8 Office, July 10, 1885. 

Sir: By direction of the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, I hereby notify you 
that your contract for the transfer of baggage from steamships to the Barge Office will 
be terminated at the expiration of sixty days from this date. 

Very respectfully, 

E. L. HEDDEN, Collector. 

Hon. John H. Starin, 

Pier 18 North River, New York. 


[Enclosure.] 


The Hon. E. L. Hedden, 

Collector of Customs, Port of Neio York : 


July 14, 1885. 


Sir : I have received your note of the 10th instant, in which you say that by direc¬ 
tion of the Secretary of the Treasury you notify me that my contract for the transfer 
of baggage from incoming ocean steamships to the Barge Office in this city will be 
terminated at the expiration of sixty days. I respectfully decline to accept such no¬ 
tice as having any force or effect under the contract to which you refer. The Barge 
Office was established, and now exists, by act of Congress, and I am advised that you 
have no legal right to discontinue the examination of passengers’ baggage there. 

My contract provides for a term of three years, unless sooner terminated upon no¬ 
tice, “ for good and sufficient cause.” No such cause exists or is asserted. No complaint 
has ever been made by any officer of the Government respecting my services under the 
contract. Every stipulation on my part ha.s been fully and faithfully performed. 
The contract was awarded to me as the lowest bidder upon public proposals. I have 
given heavy bonds to faithfully perform the service required of me by its provisions. 
I have expended large sums in preparation for its continuance, and I shall expec| 
the officers of the Government, upon due consideration of the facts, to respect my 
rights and discharge the obligations which are imposed upon them by the law. 

I have the honor to be, etc., etc., very respectfully yours, 

JOHN H. STARIN. 


No. 32. 

Department of Justice, 

Office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. (7., July 24, 1885. 

Sir: It is provided in a contract made by tlie collector of customs 
for the port of New York, acting for the United States, by direction and 
with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, and John H. Starin, 
for the transfer of baggage from passenger steamers arriving from for¬ 
eign ports to the Barge Office, dated August 16, 1884, that the con¬ 
tract may be terminated by either party thereto upon sixty days’ notice, 
for good and sufficient cause. 

In accordance therewith, the collector by your direction on the 10th 
instant notified Mr. Starin that the contract would be terminated in 60 
days from that date. 

Mr. Starin in his letter of July 14,1885, to the collector, admits re¬ 
ceipt of notice, but declines to accept it as having any force or effect 
under the coutract. 

When either party desires to terminate the contract, 60 days’ notice 
of such purpose is required, and that is all that is required. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 321 


The good and sufficient cause which may have induced the giving 
notice of termination need not be set out in the notice itself. 

I think therefore the notice in the present case sufficient to terminate 
the contract at the date specified therein. 

Very respectfully, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


A. McOUE, 
Solicitor of the Treasury. 


No. 33. 


Collector of Customs, 

New York: 


July 25,1885. 


Sir : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, 
reporting your action under Department’s instructions of the 9th instant 
concerning the termination of the contract with Mr. John H. Starin for 
the transfer of passengers and their baggage, brought to your port by 
foreign steamships, to the Barge Office. 

You report, and it appears from the enclosures of your letter that 
Mr. Starin refused to accept the notice of the 10th instant to him, of the 
termination of said contract within sixty days from that date. 

It will be seen from the opinion of the Solicitor of the Treasury, dated 
the 24th instant, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, that such notice 
was sufficient to terminate the contract at the time specified therein. 

You are instructed to notify all foreign steamship companies who pro¬ 
pose to use the Barge Office for the landing of their passengers and bag¬ 
gage after the expiratiou of the said contract, that the expense in fur¬ 
nishing transfer boats or steamers and of lauding passengers and bag¬ 
gage at the said Barge Office will in no event be borne by the Gov¬ 
ernment. 

Very respectfully. 


D. MANNING, . 

Secretary. 


No. 31. 

Starin’s City, Eiyer, and Harbor Transportation 
Company, Pier 18, North River, 

New York , August 12, 1885. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). G.: 

Sir: With great respect I hold that the officers of the Treasury De¬ 
partment are violating the written contract made by the Government of 
the United States with me for the transfer of baggage from incoming 
foreign steamships to the Barge Office in this city, and that they are also 
violating the act of Congress under which that contract was made. 

Against this action 1 now respectfully protest to you in writing, as I 
have already done orally. 

The examination of passengers’ baggage has long been the weakest 
point in the collection of our customs reveuue. Committed to squads 
of subordinate officials, acting without proper supervision upon the 




322 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


numerous steamship piers surrounding the city, it was characterized by 
many annoyances, petty black mailings and corruption, which irritated 
travelers and threw the whole system into discredit. These facts are 
notorious. 

In 1878, the Congress of the United States, after mature deliberation, 
resolved upon the abolition of this antiquated and vicious system, and 
adopted the new policy of examining all incoming baggage—as all 
merchandise is examined—in one place, under the control of the Govern¬ 
ment and the immediate direction and supervision of the superior officers 
of the customs. To provide a place for this purpose, Congress, on the 
15th of June, 1878, appropriated $210,000. Under concurrent legisla¬ 
tion, previously obtained from the legislature of the State of New York, 
the city of New York granted for this purpose a most admirable site. 
The money appropriated was expended, and in May of last year the 
new Barge Office was ready for use. The act of June 15, 1878, was 
passed by both houses of Congress and was signed by the President. 
The new policy, thus clearly declared, met with concurrence and obedi¬ 
ence on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, the surveyor, and 
the collector of this port. 

On the 23d of May, 1884, the collector, under direction of the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury, advertised for proposals to carry out the law of 
Congress, and for the transfer of baggage of saloon passengers upon 
incoming steamships from foreign ports to the new Barge Office. In re¬ 
sponse to this advertisement I was the lowest bidder, and the contract 
for the service required was regularly awarded to and made with me 
on the lGth of August, 1884, to continue for three years. At large ex¬ 
pense I altered three of my steamboats to fit them for the service, and, 
on the 27th of last August, entered upon the discharge of the contract. 
Every requirement of that contract has been faithfully carried out by 
me. No complaint respecting my service under the contract has ever 
been made by any officer of the Government, and I am authoritatively 
informed by your Department that no complaint is now made, that 
there is no claim or pretense that I have not fully and faithfully dis¬ 
charged every obligation assumed by me under the contract. 

The new system was, however, very distasteful to one English steam¬ 
ship company, which company enjoyed, let it be particularly noted, the 
monopoly of expressage of baggage from its own pier; and the agent of 
that company in this country early avowed his intention of breaking up 
the new system and forcing the Government of the United States to re¬ 
treat from the position which it had taken and to return to the former 
method of following the steamship companies from place to place and 
waiting upon their convenience and pleasure. The new system was 
also distasteful to some of the Government inspectors, who regretted the 
threatened interference with their former independent sources of reve¬ 
nue which its adoption involved. From these two sources and their 
sympathizers came every possible effort to make the new system work 
badly. Delays and annoyances were intentionally created, and explained 
as being the fault of the new method, while all the irritation, delays, 
and annoyances which are necessarily incident to the submission of 
passengers’ baggage to examination anywhere were so vociferously and 
so repeatedly charged against the Barge Office that the charge was be¬ 
lieved by many new passengers who had never experienced the greater 
evils attending an examination upon the company’s piers. It was natural 
that the trial of the new system should develop defects calling for correc¬ 
tion and im proveme nt. It was in evi table that the known hostility of some 
of the most important participants in the system should magnify and mul- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 323 


tiply these defects. But after ten months 7 trial, which, under the adverse 
circumstances to which I have referred, and involving also the disturb¬ 
ing element of a change in the national administration, was in fact no 
trial, instead of attempting to correct the defects, to improve and per¬ 
fect the good system adopted by Congress, instead of making the mal¬ 
contents understand that this American law was to be enforced and 
must be respected, the Treasury Department submits to the Ounard 
Steamship Company, at the instance of that company retreats from the 
position which it had assumed, abandons the policy which the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States had formally adopted, repudiates the solemnly 
declared will of Congress, and nullifiies the act of June 15,1878, under 
which hundreds of thousands of dollars of the i)eople 7 s money had been 
expended. 

I can draw no other inference from the conduct of the Department to¬ 
ward me. The contract which the Government made with me provides 
that it shall continue for three years unless sooner terminated, upon 
sixty days 7 notice, for u good and sufficient cause. 77 On the 10th of July 
notice was given me that the contract would be terminated sixty days 
from that date, but no cause was assigned for this action, and upon in¬ 
quiry as to whether any unexpressed cause exists, I am informed that 
there is none resting on any act or omission on my part, and none any¬ 
where, except in a willful change of policy. 

I can see in this notice only an arbitrary declaration by the Treasury 
Department of an intention to violate the obligation of the Government 
towards me, in entire disregard of my rights. Even before this notice 
was given the Department had commenced to ignore the contract with 
me, and, to my detriment, to violate its most important provisions. The 
contract requires me, under heavy bonds, to meet, with a suitable steam¬ 
boat, at Quarantine, every incoming foreign passenger steamer, except 
those which had usually landed in the State of New Jersey, and to re¬ 
ceive from every such steamer and transfer to the Barge Office, all the 
baggage of the cabin-passengers, together with such cabin passengers 
as choose to accompany their baggage. And the Government agrees by 
the contract to pay me a stipulated sum for each article of baggage other 
than that which is commonly known as hand-baggage. But, before the 
sixty days 7 notice, to which I have referred, had been given, and without 
any notification from the Department to me, I find, first, the Ounard and 
then the French line ignoring the law and refusing to send their bag¬ 
gage to the Barge Office, doing this under dispensations which they had 
received from the Treasury Department. I was bound by the contract 
to meet these steamers, to furnish the steamboats, the crews, and the 
coal, to undergo all the expense on my part necessary to do the business; 
but, under your order I am deprived of pay for the service. Moreover, 
lam to be left bound to meet all the smaller steamers which have not 
baggage enough to pay for the coal used in transport, while the baggage 
upon the larger steamers is arbitrarily withheld. 

Of course this means but one thing, irrespective of the sixty days 7 
notice, whether that be good or not, I am to be forced to abandon the con¬ 
tract by a violation of its obligations on the part of the Government, whose 
offiers assume that they can so violate it withi mpunity because they 
have the power. I am told that this is for no fault of mine. My respect 
for you forbids the supposition that it is in order to substitute a contract 
with some more favored person. The only remaining inference is that 
my rights are to be swept away, because the will of Congress, upon 
which they rest, is overruled by the will of the Department. 

I am advised by my lawyer that I can recover from the Government 


324 REPORT OF TftE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


compensation for all the baggage which I am bound to carry, and am 
ready to carry, under the contract, a delivery of which is refused to me 
under the orders of the Department. But, a law-suit, sir, is a poor sub¬ 
stitute in any matter of business f<5r honest and prompt payment. 

This contract has not been a profitable one. I could at the beginning 
of this season have chartered the three steamboat swhicliare employed 
m the Goverment service for more money than they can earn under the 
most favorable construction of the contract. Let it be distinctly under¬ 
stood that I did not seek the contract. I was invited, in common with 
other owners of steamboats, to make proposals for it. I responded as I 
would in any matter of business, and I have conducted the business in 
the same manner and upon the same principles which have proved satis¬ 
factory to the people of New York throughout a wide experience of many 
years. 

Of course I expected the Government to fulfill its obligations fairly 
and honestly. I understood that it was bound by a contract just as 
any ordinary citizen is bound. I had supposed that the Government of 
the United States was a continuous one, and that no change of adminis¬ 
tration involved the repudiation of the obligations of a previous admin¬ 
istration; and I understood further that it was the duty of the Treasury 
Department to execute and not to nullify the laws of Congress. This 
contract with me is, of itself, but of little importance, but the action 
of the Department in its relation to the action of the past administra¬ 
tion, and to the law of Congress, under which that action was taken is, 
it seems to me, of the gravest moment. Indeed, I cannot believe that the 
full import and true character of the course taken by your Department 
in this matteA* have received, as I hope they will receive, your delib 
erate personal consideration. In this view I respectfully insist: 

First. That so long as the contract continues, and I am bound by its 
provisions to meet and transport the baggage of the company’s steam¬ 
ships, to which it relates, I am entitled to receive, transport, and be 
paid for the baggage brought by such steamships to this port, and the 
Department has no right to authorize them to refuse delivery of such 
baggage, and I hold that any orders or permits to that effect should be 
revoked. 

Second. That the sixty days’ notice of July 10, has no force or 
effect under the contract, and should be treated as void; and, that the 
contract must continue, and should be treated as continuing, during the 
term of three years, or until such time as some default on my part 
shall furnish “good and sufficient cause”’for its termination. 

I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, &c., 

JNO. H. STARIN. 


(Endorsement.) 


United States Treasury Department, 

August 14, 1885. 


Respectfully referred to the Solicitor of 


[Enclosure.] 


the Treasury. 

E. B. YOUMANS, 

Chief Cleric. 


This agreement, made this sixteenth day of August', in the year of our Lord one 
thousand eight hundred aud eighty-four, to carry out the provisions of the act of 
Congress dated June 15th, 1878, making appropriations for the building of a Barge 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


325 


Office, u for the examination of passengers’ baggage,” by and between John H. Starin, 
ot Fultonsville, Montgomery Co., State of New York, of the first part, and William 
H. Robertson, as collector of customs at the port of New York, acting in this be¬ 
half for the United States, by direction and with the approval of the Secretary of 
the Treasury of said United States, of the second part. Witnesseth: 

First. That said party of the first part agrees to provide suitable barges, steam¬ 
boats, or other vessels, according to the condition of the weather and subject to the 
approval of the collector of the port, to meet between sunrise and sunset every day, 
each and every passenger steamer from a foreign port upon her arrival at quarantine, 
save and except such steamers as have their usual places of landing in the State of 
New Jersey. 

Second. And to receive from every such passenger steamer all baggage belonging 
to the cabin and saloon passengers, furnishing the labor to receive and properly and 
safely stow such baggage on such barges, steamboats, or other vessels when delivered 
to him from said steamer on board the vessels of the party of the first part, said de¬ 
livery to be made by the employes of the steamship companies. 

Third. And to transport such baggage from each and every such before-mentioned 
passenger steamer (except those having landing-places in New Jersey as aforesaid), 
by such barges, steamboats, or vessels, to the wharf of the new Barge Office, at the foot 
of Whitehall street, in the city of New York, and there to unload such baggage upon 
the bulkhead of said wharf. 

Fourth. And the said party of the first part, as a necessary incident to the transfer of 
such baggage, agrees to provide, on each vessel used by him to transfer baggage, suitable 
accommodations, to be approved by the collector of the port, for the transfer, free of 
expense either to the Government or the passengers, of all cabin and saloon passen¬ 
gers, and also the hand-baggage of said passengers arriving on such before-mentioned 
steamers, and who are desirous of accompanying their baggage on the transfer boat. 

In consideration whereof the party of the second part agrees to pay the party of 
the first part the sum of sixty-seven cents for each piece or package of the afore¬ 
mentioned baggage, except such pieces as are commonly known as hand-baggage. 
And it is agreed by the parties hereto that this contract shall commence and take 
effect from the twenty-seventh day of August, in the year one thousand eight hun¬ 
dred and eighty-four, and shall terminate on the twenty-seventh day of August, in 
th(*year eighteen hundred and eighty-seven. 

And it is also agreed that the party of the first part shall be paid semi-monthly by the 
party of the second part at the custom-house, upon bills to be rendered by him spec¬ 
ifying the number of packages of baggage transported from each steamer, and veri¬ 
fied and approved by the surveyor of the port. 

And it is also agreed that the party of the second part shall have the right to send 
on every such barge, steamboat, or other vessel, such officers of the customs as may 
be deemed by the collector necessary to protect the revenue; and that no baggage 
shall be received from the before-mentioned incoming steamers, or unladen at the 
bulkhead of the Barge Office, except in the presence of, or by the consent of, the 
proper officer of the customs. 

And said party of the first part further agrees that without the consent of the 
proper officer of the customs in writing, as provided in section 9 of the act known as 
the “Passenger act,” approved August 2, 1882, he will allow none, except such as are 
actually employed on such barges, steamboats, or vessels, officers of the customs 
duly designated, to board, take passage, or remain on such vessels while engaged in 
transporting passengers and their baggage. 

And it is further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the party of the 
first part shall assume all the liability of a common carrier; and, in addition thereto, 
shall pay to the United States the amount of duty that might accrue on any package 
of baggage lost through his negligence, or the negligence of, or theft by, any employd 
of his, while t he transfer of such baggage is being made from the incoming steamer to 
the Barge Office wharf. 

And it is further expressly agreed that this contract may be terminated by either 
party hereto upon sixty days’ notice for good and sufficient cause. 

And the said party of the first part further agrees and covenants to execute a good 
and sufficient bond in the penal sum of fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars, with at least 
two sureties to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, conditioned for the 
faithful performance of this contract and all and every of the covenants of the same 
on the part of the party of the first part to be kept and performed. 

And it is mutually covenanted between the parties hereto that it is an express con¬ 
dition of this contract that no member of Congress, or officer or employd of the cus¬ 
toms, or other person whose name is not disclosed in this agreement, shall be admit¬ 
ted to any share or part of this contract, or any benefit to arise therefrom, and that 
this contract shall not be assigned without the written authority of the Secretary of 
the Treasury, and any assignment without such authority shall cause a forfeiture of 
the same. ♦ 


326 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In testimony whereof the parties hereto have hereunto subscribed their names and 
affixed their seals this sixteenth day of August, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and 
eighty-four. 

6 WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON, [seal.] 

Collector. 

JNO. H. STARIN. [seal.] 


Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of— 
Howard Carroll. 

Joseph Treloar. 


No. 35. 


Department of Justice, 

Office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. 0., August 22, 1885. 
Sir : I have read a letter of Hon. John H. Starin, of the 12th instant, 
in regard to a contract with the Government for the transfer of bag¬ 
gage from incoming foreign steamships to the Barge Office in the city 


of New York. 

In a letter of July 24, 1885, I advised the Secretary of my opinion in 
the premises. 

I see no reason in Mr. Starin’s present letter to change the views I 
then expressed. 

I therefore return the letter. 


Very respectfully, 


A. McCUE, 

Solicitor. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 36. 


Custom-House, Collector’s Office, 

New York City , August 19, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to report that upon receipt of your letter of 
the 25th ultimo, all the steamship companies, except those from which 
written applications had been received for the privilege of using their 
own docks, were notified that after the 8th day of September next, the 
date upon which Mr. Starin has been informed that his contract wiU 
be terminated, the expense attending the transfer of baggage to the 
Barge Office “will in no event be borne by the Government.” 

1 transmit herewith copy of a letter addressed to me by the sur¬ 
veyor of the port, in which he inquires whether, after the 8th day of 
September next, “it is optional with any vessel to land the baggageof 
its passengers at its own dock, or at the Barge Office.” 

I understand from your letter that the Barge Office is to be kept in 
readiness for the reception and examination of the baggage of any 
steamships the owners or agents of which may elect to send the same 
there at their own expense, and shall so direct the surveyor, unless I am 
otherwise instructed. 

Very respectfully, 


Hon. D. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


ARTHUR BERRY, 
Special Deputy Collector. 


* 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 327 


[Enclosure.] 


Custom-House, Surveyor’s Office, 

New York City, August 15, 1885. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant (C. T.), 
informing me that the contract with Mr. John H. Starin will terminate at the expira¬ 
tion of sixty days from the 10th ultimo. I respectfully request that I may be in¬ 
formed if after that date it is optional with any vessel to land the baggage of its 
passengers at its wharf without specific instructions from you, as in the case of the 
Cunard and other lines, or at the Barge Office. It is to be presumed that any 
steamer arriving at the upper Quarantine, and not finding a transfer boat ready to 
take off the baggage, will proceed to her wharf; but the question will undoubtedly 
arise as to steamers which are compelled by the health officer of the port to 
anchor at lower Quarantine and which send up their passengers from that place by 
tugs. There will be many questions as to reductions of force at the Barge Office, &c., 
which will depend on your instructions as to whether or not any baggage is to be, 
after the 8th proximo, examined there. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

H. S. BEATTIE, 

Surveyor. 

To the Honorable the Collector of the Port. 


(No. 37.) 

August 26, 1885. 

Sir : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, 
transmitting a communication from the surveyor at your port, in which he 
inquires whether, after the 8th day of September next, when the con¬ 
tract with Mr. John H. Starin regarding the landing of baggage at the 
Barge Office expires, it is optional with any vessel to land the baggage 
of its passengers at its own dock or at the Barge Office. 

The Department concurs with you in the opinion that on the expira¬ 
tion of such contract the Barge Office should be kept in readiness for the 
reception and examination of the baggage from any steamships which 
the owners or agents of such steamships may elect to send there at 
their own expense, and the inquiry is therefore answered in the affirm¬ 
ative. 


Very respectfully, 


C. S. FAIBCHILD, 

Acting Secretary. 


Collector of Customs, 

New York , 



328 


REPORT OF T11E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


THE EXAMINATION OF BAGGAGE OF PASSEN- 
‘ GERS AT NEW YORK. 


No. 1 . 


Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , 1). C ., March 16, 1885.. 

Sir : The Department invites your immediate attention to sections 
5444, 5450, 5451, 5452, and 5501 of the Revised Statutes, and directs 
that you and your officers take especial care that each and all of those 
sections are faithfully executed. 

In order, however, that the prohibitions and severe penalties of these 
sections may be notified to the public, and especially to arriving trav¬ 
ellers who are accompanied by baggage or personal effects to be ex¬ 
amined by inspectors of customs and imported into the country, the 
Department will cause a supply in printed form to be sent you to-mor¬ 
row, embodying so much of said sections as are deemed pertinent; and, 
until further orders, a copy thereof will be delivered to each person 
arriving at the port of New York, at the time such person shall make 
the declaration required by existing laws and Treasury Regulations. 

You are also directed to require all customs officers and agents at 
the port of New York to be vigilant in the enforcement of these sections, 
and to make immediate report to you of any violation or attempted 
violation thereof; and whenever it shall appear to you that an offence 
against these salutary laws for the protection of the revenue has been 
committed, you will immediately report the facts to the United States 
attorney at New York for proper judicial proceedings, and if any cus¬ 
toms officer has been criminally implicated, you will forthwith report 
the facts to this Department. 

Verv respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 


Hon. Wileiam H. Robertson, 

Collector of Customs , New York. 


Secretary. 


No. 2. 

Treasury^ Department, 
Washington , D. C, September 24, 1885. 

Sir: In March last, and immediately on taking charge of the De¬ 
partment, I directed the attention of the collector at the port of New 
York to what I had reason to think was a very defective and a very 
scandalous condition of affairs respecting the examination of the bag¬ 
gage of arriving passengers, and the criminal payment of money to 
inspectors of customs by such passengers. I have reason to feel that 
the deplorable condition then and for a long time existing has not yet 
been thoroughly reformed, although there has been, I hope, somewhat 
of improvement. 

The tarifi law has put on the free-list a class of articles when brought 
into the country by their owners and as a portion of their luggage, and 
the law requires the executive to examine each piece of baggage in order 
to ascertain and decide which of articles therein contained shall be ex- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


329 


empt from duty. I appreciate the difficulty and, in many cases, the 
delicacy of the task which the Treasury has, in this relation, confided 
to the inspectors. The Treasury Regulations, the interpretation of the 
statute in question that has been recently given by the Supreme Court, 
and the tests applied thereunder by the customs officials, are extremely 
liberal to the arriving passenger, so liberal as to bring to us complaints 
from American manufacturers of articles like those thus exempted from 
duty, and from American dealers in them, who are compelled to pay 
duty on their own importations. Indeed, it is believed that this Gov¬ 
ernment is, in that regard, more liberal to travellers than is any other 
government that levies so high a rate of duty on so many imported arti¬ 
cles of clothing as we do. 

I am certain that I fully appreciate the circumstances of hurry and 
confusion in which the ocean steamers are now landing such great num¬ 
bers of first-class passengers in New York with so many large pieces of 
luggage. 

My recent order permitting luggage to be entered in bond, and to be 
forwarded to destination at ports of entry in the interior, without exam¬ 
ination in New York, was intended to alleviate, somewhat, that hurry 
and confusion. The baggage, however, that is to be delivered to the 
passenger and owner in New York must be as faithfully and reasonably 
examined by the customs officers as the packages entered by importers 
are examined, in order to verify their contents, as declared by the per¬ 
son making an entry. If the number of pieces of luggage brought by 
those coming from Europe or the character of the contents were similar 
to what usually accompanies a traveller from place to place in the United 
States or Europe, the work of the customs officers would be compara¬ 
tively easy and simple. While, therefore, I am disposed to be reason¬ 
able and patient over complaints, on one side and the other, respecting 
the liberality with which articles are, on the wharves, included in the 
free-list, I wish the utmost energy and vigilance used to prevent the 
scandal of money payments by passengers to customs inspectors. I am 
told that inspectors demand such payments in a way to make the de¬ 
mand not much else than blackmail, and that the sums paid range as 
high, in some instances, as an hundred or more dollars, while the pay¬ 
ment of five or ten dollars is a common and general fact. 

I am sure you will agree with me that such scandal and such 
violation of law should be stopped. If it cannot be arrested in any 
other way, the Department will consider the necessity of sending the 
luggage of passengers to the appraiser’s stores to be examined like mer¬ 
chandise regularly imported and entered. These gifts of money cannot 
be without the guilty co-operation of those who are not customs officers, 
who are among our most law-respecting citizens, and who really are 
the tempters. No merchant or corporation would permit its agents to 
be thus tampered with by outsiders. A casual passenger cannot be 
permitted to pay money to a customs officer who examines his luggage, 
any more than can a regular importer be permitted to “tip” an*ap- 
praiser. The transaction is suspicious on its face, and is quite indefensi¬ 
ble and intolerable in every point of view. 

I have alluded to this condition of affairs in New York in order to 
ask your aid and co-operation, as the chief Federal law officer at that 
port, in putting an end to it. I believe that the existing Federal crimi¬ 
nal law is adequate to bring about the arrest and imprisonment of the 


330 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


guilty, whether passengers or customs officials, if the facts are as rep¬ 
resented to me. 

If the existing law shall he found by you to be inadequate, I shall be 
glad to receive your views thereon at an early day. But, meanwhile, 
my desire and hope are that you will, so far as it may be within your 
sphere of official influence and control, take efficient steps to cause the 
ffrest and punishment, criminally, of any and every passenger, without 
regard to social or political influence, who pays, or offers to pay, or of 
any customs official who receives, any money or thing of value in con¬ 
nection with the customs examination, under the statute, of arriving 
luggage. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 


Hon. Wm. Dorsheimer, 

U. S. Attorney , New York. 


No. 3. 


Office of the United States Attorney 
for the Southern District of New York, 

New York , September 25, 1885. 

My Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
letter of the 24th instant, in which you call my attention to the very 
defective and very scandalous condition of affairs respecting the exam¬ 
ination of the baggage of passengers arriving at this port and the 
criminal payment of money to inspectors of customs by such passengers, 
and in which you ask my aid and co-operation in putting an end to 
these violations of law. 

I beg to assure you that your instructions will be zealously carried 
out, and that all the power of this office will be used to break up this 
pernicious and most disreputable practice. The first person who shall 
be found paying an officer money and the first officer who shall be found 
receiving money in contravention of the laws will be presented to the 
grand jury, and the indictments against them will be promptly brought 
to trial. 

I think that timely notice should be given of your determination to 
institute this reform, and therefore I have taken the liberty of sending 
your communication to the press for publication. 

Believe me, very truly, vour servant, 

WILLIAM DORSHEIMER, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, JO. 0. 



INQUIRIES. 


No. 1. 

Treasury Department, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, D. G -, 188—. 

" 1 ' 1 i • 

Sir : In order that I may have before me, in preparing my annual 
report to Congress, a correct appreciation of the Results and the effect 
of our recent investigations of custom-house affairs, and in order that 
I may decide how much and what portion, if any, of the record shall 
be sent to Congress, I desire that careful and official replies to the fol¬ 
lowing inquiries, with adequate completeness of details of facts and 
figures, be prepared for my use at the earliest practicable day. 

Very respectfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

* Secretary. 


1. Keeping in mind the distinction between rates of duty and duti¬ 
able values, what evidence is there, if any, that the former have not 
within the last few years been levied and collected as the law pre¬ 
scribed? 

2. Is there satisfactory evidence (and, if so, what is it) that on arti¬ 
cles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates, without refer¬ 
ence to values, the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not 
been collected? 

3. In what manner, and by what tests, are the invoiced measure¬ 
ments of textile fabrics verified in the usual course of custom-house 
business? 

4. What evidence is there, if any, of collusion between the persons 
making entry of several packages of similar goods on one invoice and 
the entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the appraiser for exami¬ 
nation a bogus or false package as a fair example of one in every ten? 

5. What evidence is there, if any, of false, or incompetent, or inad¬ 
equate weighing or measuring on the wharves? 

6. In respect to rates of duty, and differences between importers and 
collectors, growing out of decisions by the latter and the Treasury 
which have resulted in suits, does the existing law need amendment? 

331 







332 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

How many such collectors’ suits are now pending in Boston, New York, 
Philadelphia, and Baltimore? If they can be classified and the legal 
question at issue identified, how many suits are there in each classifi¬ 
cation, and how long has each untried suit been at issue and ready for 
trial? Cannot a plan be devised by the Attorney-General, the Solici¬ 
tor of the Treasury, the district attorneys and the judges, by which 
these suits can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits, as they 
come up, be speedily put at issue and tried? Does the existing law 
in respect to the payment of interest as a part of the damages and costs 
in 44 collectors’ suits ’ ’ need amendment ? Is there a necessity for a new 
• tribunal to try judicially questions growing out of rates of external or 
internal taxation levied by the executive when tax payers are dissatis¬ 
fied, or can the existing judicial system be made sufficient if it be 
worked efficiently? 

I. Specify the class of articles, if any there be, on which the recent 
investigations or the existing facts now susceptible of proof conclu¬ 
sively show that the Treasury Department has, during recent years, 
failed to levy and collect in New York the entire and full amount of 
duty that the law prescribed. Is the evidence of failure of a character 
to be controverted successfully? And, if so, how, and why? 

8. How has the failure come about ? Has it come of the ignorance, 
or of the indolence, or of the dishonesty of Treasury officials? Is there 
any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge of the failure, or a 
conspiracy to promote it, among the higher class of Treasury or custom¬ 
house officials? 

9. If there be conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the appraiser 
(not the general appraiser) has reported to the collector false dutiable 
values, then (1) how long has the falsehood been in operation, (2) on 
what class of articles, (3) from what places, (4) and were the articles 
shipped by the makers or purchasers, and (5) has the same general 
condition of things -existed in the larger ports? If the proof of the 
false returns of dutiable values made by the local appraiser depends 
on the statements made by special agents of the Treasury or consular 
agents, wliat evidence is there to corroborate the latter as against the 
official action of the appraising department? 

10. Is there now, or has there recently been, confusion or doubt or 
conflict of opinion in the appraisers’ department respecting any of the 
elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare the dutiable 
value; and, if so, what? Is not the place and time, and the standard 
to be applied, already defined by the statutes in the opinion of the ex¬ 
aminers, deputy appraisers, and appraiser? 

II. Can a safe average estimate be now made of the percentage of 
such undervaluation by the appraisers in any year or series of years, 
and the articles or invoices be identified? 

12. As between the examiner, deputy appraiser, and appraiser, which 
is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of business, 
for a false return of value to the collector ? What is the salary of such 
officer ? Is the appraiser much else ordinarily and in fact than one 
who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed and reported to 
him by the examiners and deputy appraisers ? 

13. Is there satisfactory evidence that any Government officials in 
the consular department or elsewhere have assisted, or consented to, 
or connived at, the presentation to the appraisers of such false evidence 
of foreign values? If so, what officers; when, and how? 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 333 


14. If, under the previous administration of the Treasury, false 
values have been habitually and systematically reported to the several 
collectors, and if the tariff law has not been faithfully executed, and 
if the full amount of duty has not been collected, can it fairly be said 
the failure has come of dishonesty, and been accompanied by guilty 
knowledge on the part of Treasury or customs officials ; and, if so, of 
whom? If money has been paid to American officials to get false re¬ 
ports of dutiable values, who has furnished and paid it? By what 
means and agency, and where, has such corruption-fund been raised 
and disbursed? 

15. If the false valuations have come of bribery or venality, what 
reason is there to think that similar corrupt and venal influences are 
not now brought to bear, or that they will not be successful in the 
future as in the past? 

16. Would a change from ad valorem to specific rates be a benefit to 
the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to bribery, provided the 
existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the future; and could specific 
rates be applied to all textile fabrics? 

17. Have the false reports by the appraisers been increased by the 
repeal, in 1874, of the “moiety law,” and by the customs legislation 
of that date modifying the existing law, and especially modifying that 
of 1*868 respecting seizure of books and papers ? 

18. Would it be practicable in the large American consular districts, 
such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American consular agents, no 
matter how numerous and alert, to personally examine articles to be 
shipped from thence to the American ports, and to verify the correct¬ 
ness of invoiced values? In which consular districts can American 
consular officers safely and surely ascertain and report the true invoiced 
values of every shipment? Is it likely that foreign governments in 
which such American consular officers are stationed would abstain 
from complaints to this Government if American consuls made vexa¬ 
tious delays in examining values and certifying invoices? What fees 
are now exacted on each shipment in London, and in England, by our 
consuls for certifying invoices, even of small articles and of little 
value? 

19. Under the law as it now is, the rates of duty levied by a collector 
can be supervised and revised by the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
finally by the Federal judicial power, but—according to the analogies 
of State taxing laws—neither the Treasury Department, nor the Pres¬ 
ident, nor the judicial power can interfere with, or revise, or set aside 
the decision of the appraising department respecting dutiable values 
if the forms of law have been complied with. Would it be safe, or 
useful to the revenues and just to importers, that the executive or the 
judicial powers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascer¬ 
tainment of the dutiable value which is to be the basis on which the 
collector is to levy ad valorem rates? 

20. The existing rate of duty on wool is a combination of an ad 
valorem and a specific rate. I desire to have prepared, and presented 
to me. a very careful and accurate analysis of the history of the sev¬ 
eral rates of duty on wool since 1860, and of the working of the com¬ 
plicated rates on wool that are now in force. 

21. Is it believed that at the larger Atlantic ports the practice gen¬ 
erally prevails, or prevails at all, of the payment of money by arriving 
passengers to customs inspectors of baggage either to prevent, or 


334 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 

facilitate, or hasten an examination of luggage to ascertain whether or 
not it contains dutiable articles; and if such a practice exists as the 
law condemns and forbids, can it be prevented, and how ? 

22. Does the evidence tend to show that, in respect to the articles on 
which the Treasury has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by the 
law, the rate has been carried by Congress beyond and above the line 
which the Government can surely protect, and into a region where smug¬ 
glers and dishonest shippers will be very powerful in evading the law? 

23. Has what has been true of the failure of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment to enforce the revenue law in New York been generally true, and, 
for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic ports? 

24. If false returns or reports to. the collectors of dutiable values 

have been made during a considerable time past, why have not the per¬ 
sons or officials concerned therein been complained of, arrested, indicted, 
and punished? _ 


LETTERS OF REPLY. 

• __ 


No. 2. 

L. G. MARTIN—Entered the Department as a first-class ($1,200) clerk August 19,1868. 
Promoted subsequently to second, third, fourth class, Assistant Chief, and appointed 
Chief of Appointment Division July 14, 1875. Appointed Special Agent May 18, 
1876, and afterwards designated as Supervising Special Agent. 

A. K. TINGLE—Entered the Department as a first-class clerk in the Fourth Auditor’s 
Otfice July 1, 1867. Promoted subsequently through all the different grades. Ap¬ 
pointed Special Agent September 10, 1872. 

Treasury Department, 
Washington , D. <7., September 3, 1885. 
Sir : In response to inquiries contained in your circular letter relative 
to evasions of customs revenue, we respectfully submit the following: 

Inquiry No. 1.—As to the rates of duty, it should be remembered 
that whenever an improper rate is exacted to the detriment of the 
importer, he is prompt to protect his rights by appeal to the Depart¬ 
ment and the courts. When, however, an improper rate is assessed 
to the detriment of the Government, there is no such motive of private 
interest to correct the wrong. Errors of this kind against the Govern¬ 
ment may, therefore, often occur without detection. It is true that 
the appraising officers and the collectors at the several ports are ex¬ 
pected to see that the revenue is protected. But entries of merchan¬ 
dise are passed through the custom-house at the principal ports with 
great rapidity; appraising officers, whose duty it is to advise the col¬ 
lector of proper classifications, are sometimes incompetent, careless, or 
dishonest, and customs brokers are always alert to secure an advantage 
for their clients. For these reasons, there is no doubt that merchandise 
is, in some cases, passed at a less rate than the law prescribes. 

For instance, some years ago, at Boston, aniline colors were for a long 
time passed, under various names, as merchandise not otherwise pro¬ 
vided for, dutiable at 20 per cent., when, upon investigation, it was 
discovered that the goods were aniline colors, dutiable, under the for¬ 
mer tariff, at 50 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem. 

Within a few weeks the Department has corrected the classification 
of cashmere-goat hair, which was passed at Philadelphia for three 
years as carpet-wool, dutiable at 2J or 5 cents per pound, according 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


335 


to value, when the rate prescribed by law was 10 cents per pound. 
So, too, in regard to flax, dutiable at $20 per ton, which was passed 
at one of the ports on the northern frontier upon the misrepresentation 
and false invoicing of the importers as tow, as $10 per ton. In these 
cases there is no doubt that proper vigilance on the part of the ap¬ 
praising officers would have prevented loss to the Government. Other 
cases have been discovered where the same merchandise was classified 
differently at different ports. 

Wo. 2.—Specific rates can only be evaded (1st) by the assessment of 
a lower rate than the law prescribes; (2d) by false weight or measure, 
and (3d) by improper or excessive damage allowances. There is evi¬ 
dence on file in the Department in the form of affidavits that the 
weighers at New York, with the avowed object of making a good show¬ 
ing of economy in the expense of weighers’ labor, have omitted to 
actually weigh large quantities of weigh able goods, and instead have 
taken the weights as marked on packages or stated by importers as the 
proper weights, and made return thereof accordingly. A practice of 
this kind long continued cannot fail to furnish an inducement to fraud 
by false invoicing and false marking of packages. It is shown by the 
evidence accompanying a report on file in regard to damage allow¬ 
ances that it is an habitual practice of some importers of fruits and 
nuts, which pay specific duties, to claim an allowance for damage upon 
sound goods, and that such allowances have been made in many cases. 

Instances of fraudulent collusion between the weigher and importer 
have been known to occur in past years, notably in the weighing of 
sugar. 

It was developed by the investigation of the 44 Jay Commission,” in 
1877, that corrupt and irregular practices prevailed in the weigher’s 
department at New York, and that illegal fees in the nature of per¬ 
quisites to the weighers were exacted from the importers upon every 
cargo weighed. As a result of subsequent reforms instituted in this 
branch of the service, it was claimed that there was a large increase 
in returned weights of sugars, showing that the full duties had not 
been previously collected. 

Wo. 3.—From such information as we have in regard to the measure¬ 
ment of textile fabrics, we are of opinion that such measurements are 
seldom, if ever, verified by customs officers. This question, however, 
can properly be answered by the appraising officers at the several 
ports. 

Wo. 4.—Instances of fraudulent collusion between importers and 
entry clerks or deputy collectors have been discovered in past years. 
One case, known as the 4 4 Lawrence frauds, ” at New York, involved great 
loss to the Government. Upon the discovery of these frauds, the col¬ 
lector adopted a plan of assigning a deputy collector to designate the 
examination packages upon invoices for each vessel arriving, such as¬ 
signment being made on the day of the arrival of the vessel, so that 
there could be no preconcerted arrangement between the importers 
and the officers so assigned, a different deputy being assigned for each 
vessel. How far this device has prevented fraudulent collusion is not 
known. Some years ago, at Boston, it was discovered that frauds of 
this character to the extent of about $70,000 in duties were perpetrated 
by collusion with officials. In one importation at that port, where the 
invoice described seven packages of cotton hosiery, six of the packages 
contained lastings, while the one package which was designated for 


336 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


examination contained cotton hosiery, in accordance with the descrip¬ 
tion in the invoice. The fact that such frauds are known to have been 
carried on in the past would seem to warrant the assumption of their 
possibility at any time. Doubtless the success of the Lawrence frauds 
in New York was suggestive to the Boston parties, who adopted sim¬ 
ilar methods. 

Another method at Boston was to invoice the goods, which were in 
reality lastings, subject to high duties, as hide cuttings, which were free. 
By arrangement with the deputy collector or entry clerk, an order was 
made for the inspector on the wharf to examine the merchandise, which 
really meant no examination at all, and the goods were not seen by the 
appraiser, and were delivered without the packages being opened by 
customs officers. 

Nothing but the absolute integrity and vigilance of the officers in¬ 
trusted with the duty of designating the examination packages, or the 
examination of all packages in the invoice, can prevent this kind of 
fraud. 

No. 5.—See answer to the second inquiry. 

No. 6.—This inquiry can be properly answered by the collectors and 
district attorneys at the principal ports. 

No. 7.—It cannot be successfully controverted that dll silks consigned 
to commission houses in New York are, as a rule, undervalued in the 
invoices, and that in most cases the appraising officers have failed to 
advance the values sufficiently to meet the true market value and 
secure the collection of the full amount of duty that the law prescribes. 
This is also true as to laces, embroideries, gloves, fine earthen and glass 
ware, and, to a greater or less extent, as to all other goods which are 
sent to this country for sale on foreign account, commonly known as 
consigned goods. 

No. 8.—The reasons for this failure may be stated as follows: 

First. Importers who make entry of this class of merchandise are 
bound together by mutual interests to prevent advances of consigned 
goods to such figures as would enable bona fide purchases to be made 
abroad by American merchants. 

Second. There being few, if any, actual purchasers in the foreign 
markets, there is great difficulty in obtaining evidence of actual market 
value. 

Third. Fictitious values are established by the united testimony of 
importers whose business is dependent upon a continuance of the con¬ 
signment system. 

Fourth. The views of the appraising officers themselves as to market 
values have become warped and incorrect because of the fact that the 
only values with which they are acquainted are those stated in invoices 
of consigned goods, so that when evidence of undervaluation is pre¬ 
sented, the appraisers are reluctant to use and act upon it. They as¬ 
sume that their advances will not be sustained on reappraisement 
owing to the combination of importers referred to, who, by frequent 
personal intercourse with the examiners, exert a powerful influence 
over them, and override the evidence of undervaluation. The apprais¬ 
ing officers have not only failed, for these and other reasons, to use tes¬ 
timony officially furnished to them as to actual foreign market value, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 337 


but have also failed to use the means given them by lav (section 
2922, R. S.) to ascertain all the facts relating to importations, by call¬ 
ing before them the importer and examining him on oath, and requir¬ 
ing him to produce all letters, papers, invoices, &c., relating to the 
importation. 

It is a well-known fact that many of the importations embraced in 
consigned invoices represent actual orders previously taken by the im¬ 
porters at fixed prices in dollars and cents; and if the appraiser had re¬ 
quired the production of these orders and the prices at which the goods 
were to be delivered, there would have been no difficulty in ascertaining 
the true market value of the merchandise, and the collection of the duties 
thereon. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the appraising 
officers to avail themselves of the means thus conferred upon them by 
law for ascertaining the facts in regard to any importation upon any 
other ground than that they do not wish to disturb the existing order 
of things. 

JVo. 9.—As to silks, velvets, laces, embroideries, gloves, earthenware, 
&c., inadequate values have been reported by the appraisers for a num¬ 
ber of years past. It should not be said, however, that their failure to 
return full values‘has been wholly intentional on their part. While 
they have known, in a general way, that the merchandise was under¬ 
valued, they claim to have been unable to secure such proofs of actual 
market value as would sustain their advances upon reappraisement, 
owing to the practice, so long in vogue, of appointing members of con¬ 
signment houses as merchant appraisers, and of taking the testi¬ 
mony of members of such houses to sustain the integrity of the 
invoices. 

The appraising officers must, however, be held largely responsible 
for the growth of such a practice, because, under the regulations, it 
was their duty to furnish to the collector the names of suitable persons 
from which to select the merchant appraiser, and of proper persons to 
be called as witnesses. The records show that, in a large majority of 
cases, firms whose invoices were known to be undervalued have ap¬ 
peared upon the list sent to the collector by the appraiser, and in many 
cases the members of firms receiving consigned goods for sale on for¬ 
eign account were selected as merchant appraisers. It is not easy to 
understand how the appraising officers expected to arrest false valu¬ 
ations so long as they pursued this practice. The class of articles most 
largely undervalued are those mentioned above, and are generally 
shipped by the manufacturers to their agents in Hew York, direct from 
the place of manufacture, usually continental European ports. There 
have not been so many undervaluations from England as from France 
and Germany, owing to the system in England of requiring an oath to 
the invoice, to be taken before an officer duly authorized by the laws 
of Great Britain. 

Still, there are some classes of English goods, notably hosiery and 
linen, which have been consigned by the manufacturers to this coun¬ 
try for sale, invoiced at prices below the actual market value. Pur¬ 
chased goods by reputable houses are seldom, if ever, found to be 
tainted by these fraudulent practices. The proof of undervaluations 
of the articles above mentioned does not rest wholly upon the state¬ 
ments of Treasury or consular agents, but is to be found in the testi¬ 
mony taken upon reappraisements before the general appraiser at New 

22 A 


338 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


York, and before commissions appointed by the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury to investigate the subject. 

No. 10.—There is now and has been since the passage of the tariff 
act of 1883, much confusion in regard to the elements of dutiable value 
where questions are involved as to the dutiable or non-dutiable 
character of coverings. The exemption of charges from duty has 
given rise to a system of undervaluation by overstating the cost of the 
covering and packing charges in the invoices. Innumerable questions 
have arisen upon such cases, and an immense amount of litigation with 
the Government will be the result. 

We do not think that the examiners, assistant appraisers, and ap¬ 
praiser are absolutely clear or harmonious as to the elements to be 
ascertained in order to fix dutiable value. It has been a favorite 
doctrine in the appraiser’s department for many years that the price 
paid for an article settles the question of dutiable value of that article, 
no matter whether the invoice of one importer for the same article was 
above or below that of another, and in the face of the requirement of 
the statute, which provides that the appraisers shall appraise the true 
and actual market value and wholesale price of the merchandise at 
the time of exportation, and in the principal markets of the country 
whence the same has been shipped, any invoice to the contrary not¬ 
withstanding. The invoiced price has governed as to purchased goods, 
if the appraisers were satisfied that the prices in the invoice represented 
the actual cost, it being held that the price paid for any given article 
at any particular time was the market value so far as that importation 
was concerned. As suggested by Secretary Bobert J. Walker, in a 
circular issued by him in 1848, under this doctrine, if merchandise was 
acquired by gift, there would be no dutiable value attached. 

It frequently happens that a merchant may be able, by reason of his 
purchasing an unusually large quantity, or of his agreement to take 
the entire product of a factory during a season, to obtain merchandise 
below the price at which it is usually sold in the principal markets of 
production and sale. He thus not only obtains an advantage over his 
competitor as to the price he pays for the goods, but he obtains the 
further advantage as to the tax he pays upon it in this country. It is 
believed that that provision of law which requires the appraisement 
at the actual market value or wholesale price in the principal markets 
in the country of production at the time and place of shipment was 
intended to equalize the taxes collected upon importations by different 
importers, and that where an importer buys in the usual wholesale 
quantity, and at the usual wholesale prices in the foreign markets, he 
should not be placed at a disadvantage because his competitor has bought 
an unusual quantity, and has thus obtained an unusual discount. 

No. 11.—We think a safe average minimum estimate of the under¬ 
valuation of silks, to which special attention has been given, can be 
made, and that such undervaluation is not less than 20 per cent.; 
that is to say, there should be 20 per cent, added to the value of all 
consigned invoices of silks to approximate actual market value, and 
this for at least ten years past. It must be remembered, however, that 
during these ten years there have been frequent spasmodic efforts to 
correct the undervaluation of silk by investigation and advances upon 
appraisement, which advances have, in some cases, been sustained and 
large amounts of increased duties and penalties collected. But these 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 339 

advanced valued have not been consistently maintained by the apprais¬ 
ing officers. 

The merchandise having gone into consumption, there could be no 
identification of particular invoices and articles. 

No. 12.—The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the 
usual course of business, for the values returned on appraisement. 
The assistant appraiser, to whom such examiner reports, however, 
should also be held responsible for long-continued erroneous valuations. 
The system in the appraiser’s office at New York, whereby one exam¬ 
iner has exclusive charge of a particular line of goods, "furnishes an 
opportunity for fraudulent collusion between examiners and importers, 
and if the assistant appraiser does not personally and carefully super¬ 
vise the work of the examiners, there is no check upon such a practice. 
In our judgment, examiners should be changed periodically from one 
class of goods to another, and from one division to another. The ob¬ 
jection made to this in the appraiser’s department is, that when an ex¬ 
aminer becomes an expert in one line of goods, it is unwise to put him 
in charge of some other line with which he is not so familiar. In reply 
to this, it may be said that at the ports of Cincinnati, Chicago, Balti¬ 
more, Boston, and Philadelphia examiners become expert in various 
lines, of goods, and there is no reason why such a course should not be 
adopted at New York. In this way the monopoly of knowledge as to 
the values of particular lines of goods, now kept within the breasts of 
particular examiners, would be broken up. 

The maximum salary allowed to examiners is $2,500 per annum. 
When it is remembered that examiners at New York receiving this 
salary pass upon goods upon which duties are collected amounting to 
from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 per annum, it is seen that the salary is 
ridiculously low as compared with the compensation paid in private 
business for similar services. 

The appraiser at New York is necessarily an executive officer, whose 
signature to returns of values is merely formal, and is of necessity placed 
upon invoices by a stamp, except in cases where values are disputed. 
The number of invoices that pass through the appraiser’s office in New 
York in one year is about two hundred and twenty thousand. 

No. 13.—While we know of no evidence that Government officials, in 
the consular department or elsewhere, have assisted, or consented to, or 
connived at, the presentation to the appraiser of false evidence of for¬ 
eign value, it must be stated that, with but few exceptions, consular 
offices have during many years performed their duties with reference 
to invoices in a perfunctory and indifferent manner, and have shown 
but little disposition to inquire into questions affecting the revenue. 
The assignment of a special agent to duty in Europe about four years 
ago had a tendency to quicken the understanding of consular officers 
as to their duty in this regard, and excellent results have followed in 
some instances, particularly at points where experts were appointed to 
aid the consuls in the ascertainment of values. 

14 ._From the knowledge that we have on this subject, we do not 

think it can be fairly said that the failure of the appraising officers to 
appraise goods at their full market value has come of dishonesty and 
has been accompanied by a guilty knowledge on the part of Treasury 

or customs officials. . , __ _ _ . . . 

In the case of the appraisement of certain wool at Philadelphia, where 
the evidence of the correct market value was conclusive, the appraiser 


340 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


persisted in passing the wool at a valuation which would bring it in at 
the lower rate of duty instead of the higher rate, which an appraise¬ 
ment of its actual value would have imposed. This was also the case, 
as to the classification of cashmere-goat hair as carpet-wool, referred to 
in answer to Inquiry No. 2, where the appraiser, although upon his 
original report upon the invoice he classified the merchandise as cash¬ 
mere-goat hair, and dutiable as such, in his reports to the Department, 
upon the appeal of the importer, earnestly took the view that his classi¬ 
fication was wrong, and that the merchandise should be passed as car¬ 
pet-wool. Even in these cases there is no evidence outside of the tacts 
cited of improper motives on the part of the appraiser, although iu 
his report and in the decision of the Department which followed it 
the facts in the case were obviously misstated. Some instances have 
occurred at New York in which proof of corruption of appraising 
officers was obtained, and the officers themselves dismissed from the 
service. 

No. 15.—If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, there is 
no reason why such bribery and venality may not be repeated. ‘ ‘ When¬ 
ever there is a coincidence of temptation, frailty, and opportunity, 
there can naturally be but one result. ” 

No. 16.—There can be no doubt that a change from ad valorem to 
specific rates would help to diminish the tendency to corrupt action 
and loss to the revenue by the incomx^etency or indifference of ap¬ 
praisers. The application of specific rates to all textile fabrics would 
undoubtedly be a work of great difficulty, particularly as to woollen 
goods, but it is believed that a schedule can be prepared by the skilled 
officers in the appraiser’s department, with the aid of manufacturers 
and merchants, which would be satisfactory to all interested, except 
those who are profiting by the present system of undervaluation. 

No. 17.—The consignment system as it now exists has largely grown 
up since the enactment, in 1874, of the law known as the “anti-moiety 
act.” A careful examination of the provisions of this law will show 
to any unprejudiced mind that, if it was not designed for that object , its 
tendency is to promote the very condition of affairs as to values which 
now exist. It practically ties the hands of the Government, and pre¬ 
vents the enforcement of the tariff laws, in that it prevents its officers 
from obtaining proofs necessary to establish fraud by undervaluation. 
Proof of such frauds could be usually obtained under the old law by an 
examination of the books and papers of the importer, where such ex¬ 
amination was made without giving him an opportunity to sequester 
the papers. There is a provision of the act of 1874 under which books 
and papers of an importer may be examined by the attorney of the 
Government after suit is commenced, but notice must be given to the 
importer of the particular books and papers desired, and this gives an 
opportunity to those who are dishonest to suppress proofs of guilt. 
Then, too, the sixteenth section of that act, which requires submission 
to the jury of the question of fraudulent intent as a separate proposi¬ 
tion and a separate verdict thereon, operates as a barrier to successful 
prosecutions. In addition to this, the courts have held that the twelfth 
section of said act, providing penalties and forfeitures, which, for reasons 
stated, in the majority of cases cannot be enforced, repealed section 
2864 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the forfeiture of the value 
of merchandise fraudulently entered. If, therefore, the importer suc¬ 
ceeds in accomplishing his fraud and obtaining possession of the goods 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 341 


although possibly an action would lie against him for duties, he is 
clear of all other liability, unless a criminal prosecution can be suc¬ 
cessfully maintained against him, and in such cases the difficulty of 
obtaining the necessary proofs is even greater than in civil suits. 

Under former laws, informers in customs cases were assured of 25 
per cent, of the sum realized by the Government from the information 
furnished. Under the present law their compensation is dependent 
upon many contingencies. If the fraud revealed consists of under¬ 
valuation, they are not sure of any reward, because of the difficulty of 
collecting even advanced duties, not to speak of the impossibility of se¬ 
curing forfeitures; and the amount in any case depends «ipon the dis¬ 
cretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, and cannot exceed $5,000. 
When a great fraud has been successful, those having knowledge of it 
find it more profitable to treat with the guilty parties than with the 
Government. 

No. 18.—We think it practicable—and the ground of our judgment 
is found in the actual experience of the consuls at London, Liverpool, 
Bradford, Lyons, Zurich, Horgen, Basle, Marseilles, Geneva, St. Galle, 
and Manchester—for consuls to give their personal attention to the 
value of articles shipped from their ports to the United States, par¬ 
ticularly when such officers are aided by experts appointed for that 
purpo'se; not that consuls can personally examine every shipment, but 
they can keep thomselves advised generally of the market value of 
staple articles shipped from their consulates. The late Consul Packard, 
at Liverpool, caused to be prepared and furnished to the appraising 
officers at the principal ports a printed price-list of all articles shipped 
from his consulate from week to week, and there is no reason why other 
consuls might not follow this example as to all staple goods. A uni¬ 
form consular fee of $2.50 is charged for verifying invoices, regardless 
of the value of the goods, and in Great Britain, in addition to this, a 
fee is charged for administering the oath. 

No. 19.—We do not think it would be practicable or judicious to 
clothe the executive or judicial power of the Government with juris¬ 
diction in the matter of the ascertainment of dutiable values. Exist¬ 
ing laws, if properly administered by appraising officers, furnish ade¬ 
quate remedies for injustice, in ordinary cases of appraisement, to 
both importers and the Government. 

No. 20.—The information called for by this question can be obtained 
from the appraising officers at the principal ports. 

No. 21.—It is believed that at the port of New York the practice of 
taking money by inspectors from incoming passengers for facilitating 
the examination of their baggage, and for passing dutiable articles 
without payment of duty, has been a general one. Its suppression is 
attended with the greatest difficulty, owing to the fact that it has been 
long established, and passengers of respectability and wealth, under¬ 
standing it to be a necessary evil, are willing to pay money to avoid 
detention and trouble. An effort was made by Collector Merritt, some 
years ago, to break up this practice, and for that purpose he employed 
a detective, who obtained proofs of the actual payment of money to 
inspectors in a number of cases, in each of which the officer was dis¬ 
missed from the service. The system of espionage which was neces¬ 
sary to the detection of this class of offences was distasteful to Surveyor 
Graham, at whose instance it was finally discontinued. 


342 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


We know of no way to break up this practice, except the employ¬ 
ment of inspectors of known integrity, under the supervision of a 
competent deputy surveyor, possessed of earnest convictions on the 
subject, and determined to put an end to a system of petty bribery and 
extortion which has done more than any one thing to bring disgrace 
upon the public service. 

Wo. 22.—It is a self-evident proposition that the higher the duty the 
greater the temptation to evade it. This is illustrated by the operation 
of the tariff of 1883, which increased the duty on opium from $6 to $10 
per pound. Under the previous rate of duty, which Avas equal to 100 
per cent, ad valorem, the amount of smuggling was enormous; and 
under the present rate, according to the best information obtainable, 
more than half of the amount consumed by the Chinese on the Pacific 
coast is smuggled. In past years the great profit of opium smuggling 
at San Francisco led to the formation of extensive combinations be¬ 
tween smugglers and customs officers, reaching to even officers of the 
courts. It is believed that these combinations are not wholly broken 
up, although successful prosecutions have had a beneficial effect. 

As to undervaluations of goods paying high ad valorem rates, taking 
silks as an example, those best informed on the subject express the 
opinion that, while the nominal rate of duty is 50 per cent., the actual 
rate collected is not more than 30 per cent. But undervaluations are 
not confined to articles paying high ad valorem rates, and it is not to 
be expected that honesty in invoicing will be secured by reducing the 
rate of duty. Wherever a profit of 3 to 5 per cent, can be obtained by 
undervaluation, with little or no risk, unscrupulous importers will take 
advantage of the opportunity. 

Wo. 23.—Undervaluations have not prevailed so extensively in pro¬ 
portion to the amount of business transacted at other ports as at New 
York, for the reason that the consignment system has not prevailed at 
other ports to such an extent. 

Wo. 24.—There has been no satisfactory evidence, as hereinbefore 
stated, that the incorrect returns of values made by appraisers have 
been made knowingly and corruptly, except in the cases mentioned in 
No. 14, w'here the officers were dismissed from the service. In those 
cases indictments were procured, but, for reasons unknown to us, the 
parties were never brought to trial. 

Very respectfully, 

L. G. MARTIN, 

A. K. TINGLE, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 3. 

Additional Inquiries to Special Agents Martin and Tingle. 

1. Specify each and every article on which, within your own knowl¬ 
edge, and within two years last past, a less rate of duty has been levied 
than the law required, and name the port of entry of each article. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 343 


2. Specify each and every article on which, within your own knowl¬ 
edge, and within the last two years, the full amount of purely specific 
duty has not been collected, and the port of entry, excluding damage 
allowance. 

4. Specify each case of collusion, referred to in the fourth question, 
that has happened within the last two years, and the port. 

7. Am I to understand you as saying that all goods “which are sent 
to this country for sale on foreign account, commonly known as 1 con¬ 
signed goods,’” are now underinvoiced, and that in most cases cor¬ 
rect values of such goods are not now reported by the appraiser at 
New York to the collector? If not, please make your reply plain and 
direct as to the present date. 

9. This question refers to “false dutiable values” reported by the 
appraiser. Let it be answered, and the articles specified, and the 
evidence indicated, on which falsehood is affirmed. What special 
validity and influence over a shipper has an oath because taken be¬ 
fore a British officer instead of the American consul ? Does that oath 
now prevent false invoices, in Great Britain or Ireland, of consigned 
goods? Is it your opinion that in England prosecutions would, or 
could, be carried on for perjury committed in enforcing the American 
tariff law? 

10. ' Apart from “coverings,” how will the tenth question be an¬ 
swered by you? What appraising officer at the present time thinks 
and says that “price paid” is the same as the “ dutiable value” of 
the statute? 

11. Are the values of the articles referred to in your answer to the 
eleventh question now falsely returned to the collector of New York 
by the appraiser? 

13. Give the names of the consular officers, now in office, referred to 
in the first part of your answer to the thirteenth question. Who was 
the special agent to whom you refer? 

15. Have you any reason to believe that bribery or venality in New 
York now prevent true and full returns of dutiable values by the ap¬ 
praising department? 

17. Specify more fully “the very condition of affairs as to values,” 
referred to in the second sentence of your answer to the seventeenth 
question ? 

18. The eighteenth question refers to the personal examination of 
merchandise by consular officers. Please confine your reply to those 
officers. Besides the fee of $2.50, what fee is charged in Great Britain 
for the oath, and has such fee been paid into the Treasury, and is it 
now so paid, or has any portion of it been reserved by any consular 
officer or clerk, or by the person administering the oath; and if so, by 
whom? 

24. State whether or not, in your opinion, dutiable values are now, 
in New York, not truly reported to the collector j and if so, on what 
articles? 


344 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 4. 

Reply to Additional Inquiries. 

Washington, D. C., September 19, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to additional interrogatories contained in memoran¬ 
dum herewith returned, we respeefully submit the following: 

1. Certain proprietary medicines, including about one hundred dif¬ 
ferent articles, were passed by the appraiser at New York for a number 
I of years as medicinal preparations, at 25 per cent., when the legal rate 
was 50 per cent. This erronous classification was brought to the at- 
I tention of the Department by Special Agent Tichenor, then in Europe, 
more than a year ago, and the classification was some time afterwards 
corrected by the appraisers. The importers appealed, and the Depart¬ 
ment sustained the advanced rate, deciding that the merchandise 
should be classified as “proprietary medicines” dutiable at 50 per 
cent. (See Department decisions 6687, 6837, 6915, 6917, and 6921, 
wherein the articles are described.) 

Lower rates than the law requires were collected at the port of Phil¬ 
adelphia for a number of years upon certain wools, mohair noils, 
and cashmere-goat hair. The classification in these cases were cor¬ 
rected by Department decisions 6998, 6999, and 7034, all dated in July 
last. 

The erronous classification of “flax” as “tow,” referred to in an¬ 
swer to first inquiry, occurred at the port of Suspension Bridge, N. 
Y., about a year ago, and the merchandise was seized at Paterson, 
N. J., by officers from the New York custom-house, on the ground 
that it had been fraudulently entered. 

In the month of June last, upon investigation by Special Agent Ayer, 
it was found that the appraising officers at New York were in the habit 
of classifying certain “glazed ornamental tiles” as “paving-tiles,” 
dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem, when, according to the judgment 
of experts, they should be classed as “glazed earthernware,” dutia¬ 
ble at 55 per cent, ad valorem. The appraiser having acceded to 
this view and changed the classification accordingly, the importers 
appealed, but the point was decided against them by the Department, 
as shown by Decision 7051, dated July 30 last. 

For a long period “scoured wool, 7 ’ in the form of “laps, “broken 
tops, 77 “slubbings,” and “fine rovings, 77 was admitted in large quanti¬ 
ties at Boston and New York as ordinary wool waste or spinner’s waste 
at 10 cents per pound, under the provisions of the tariff for “rags 77 
“mungo,” “waste, 77 “shoddy, 77 “flocks, 77 &c. Upon investigation, 
made at the instance of the consul at Liverpool and-Special Agent 
Tichenor, the merchandise was classified as “washed wool, 77 dutiable 
I at 20 cents per pound. (See Synopsis, 5820.) 

Upon further investigation, it was decided by the Department that 
the merchandise in question should be classified as “scoured wool 77 
dutiable at 30 cents per pound. (See Decision 6884, dated April 29 
last.) 

There are two firms in New York, A. Diepenbrock & Co. and Ben- 
ziger Bros., who import what is known as “church statuary, 77 bein<^ 
moulded figures of religous subjects, made of mineral substances 
and decorated. The character of the importations in both cases is 
practically identical. Those of A, Diepenbrock & Co, were formerly 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 345 


passed at 10 per cent., and are now passed at 30 per cent, ad valorem, 
as works of art, while those of Benziger Bros, are classified as “ manu¬ 
factures of mineral substances,” dutiable at 40 per cent. The action of 
the appraiser in both cases is in accordance with the specific instruc¬ 
tions of the Department. The ruling in the case of Diepenbrock & Co. 
was based upon a judicial decision (see Department decision No. 5549) 
made, as is now admitted, upon an insufficient presentation of the facts. 
Benziger Bros, have protested against this discrimination, but without 
avail, the higher rate being deemed the legal one as to their importa¬ 
tions, notwithstanding said decision. It would seem that, inasmuch 
as there is no appreciable difference in the character of the merchan¬ 
dise, the classification should be the same in both cases. 

The foregoing embrace the only cases which we are able to recall to 
mind at this time, occurring within the last two years, in which a less 
rate of duty has been levied than the law required. 

2. The only cases within our own knowledge now occurring to us, in 
which within the last two years the full amount of purely specific duty 
has not been collected, exclusive of allowance for damage, are those 
mentioned above, namely, “wool,” “noils,” “ cash mere-goat hair,” 
imported at Philadelphia, “scoured wool,” imported at New York and 
Boston, and “flax,” imported at Suspension Bridge. In these cases 
the insufficient collection was due to the improper assessment of rate, 
and not to a false return of quantity. 

4. We have no knowledge of any case of collusion between an im¬ 
porter and an entry clerk or deputy collector, whereby the Govern¬ 
ment has been defrauded by the designation of packages for examina¬ 
tion within the last two years. The cases cited in our answer to No. 4 
occurred several years ago, at New York and Boston, and were referred 
to as indicating the possibility of this class of frauds. 

7. We do not hesitate to express our conviction, from all the facts 
we have been able to obtain, that all goods subject to ad valorem duty 
consigned by European shippers to regularly established agencies in 
the United States, chiefly at the port of NeAV York, for sale on for¬ 
eign account, commonly known as “consigned goods,” are now under¬ 
in voiced, and that while in some cases the appraising officers may report 
the full dutiable value, as a rule correct values of such goods are not 
reported to the collector. There may be exceptional cases, where the 
invoices express fair values, but the rule is as we have stated. The 
articles of greatest importance thus imported are silk goods, leather 
gloves, hosiery, German and French woollen and worsted goods, cotton 
embroideries and laces, linens, and crockery. The importation of silks 
especially has received careful investigation from time to time by con¬ 
suls abroad, as well as by special agents and others. Beference is made 
to the report of Messrs. Tichenor, Tingle, and Spaulding, on the subject 
of undervaluations, dated the 10th of April last, in which it is shown 
that consigned silks are invoiced below the cost of labor and materials 
used in their manufacture, the difference ranging from 1 per cent, to 50 
per cent.; that at least 10 per cent, should be added to the cost of labor 
and materials, to cover waste, insurance, interest, and other operating 
expenses, to reach cost of production; that the average invoice prices 
were about 23 per cent, below cost of production; that the additions 
made for market value by importers on entry and by examiners on 
appraisement amounted, in the aggregate, to no more than 8! per cent., 
leaving 14! per cent, of the difference between the cost of production 


346 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and appraised value upon which duty was not paid, without taking into 
account the manufacturer’s profit, which should be represented by not 
less than 5 per cent, additional. The latest reports from the appraiser 
at New York show that the examiners have now reached an aggregate 
valuation of silks equal to about the cost of labor and materials only. 
According to the best information obtainable, this is still from 15 to 20 
per cent, below actual market value. There may be occasional in¬ 
voices upon which the full valuation is returned, but they are rare. 

Merchandise, such as crockery, linens, hoisery, machinery, hydraulic 
hose, various manufactures of metals, knit goods, various cotton fab¬ 
rics, notably velveteens, worsted yarns, woollen and worsted goods, 
books, manufactures of paper, &c., is shipped in large quantities by 
British manufacturers and shippers to the United States invoiced at 
prices below those at which the same goods are sold to the home trade 
and for export to other countries than the United States. This is the 
result of what is believed to be a policy adopted by British manufact¬ 
urers to relieve their home markets of over-productions. They are 
thus enabled to keep their mills running, as well as to control the 
markets of the United States. The goods thus shipped to this country 
may be actually sold at prices which represent no more than the cost 
of manufacture, and even less in many instances, the manufacturers 
depending for their profits upon their sales in the home and other 
markets. In cases of this kind, when the appraising officers are satis¬ 
fied that the invoice and entered value represent the actual price paid, 
it has been usual to pass the goods without additions to make market 
value, although it has been in many cases conclusively shown that 
these prices were below the actual market value in the principal Brit¬ 
ish markets. Oaths to such invoices are believed to have been made 
in many cases in good faith, under the impression which prevails exten¬ 
sively in the mercantile community, both at home and abroad, that the 
price paid represents the dutiable value in all cases. This principle 
has been adopted largely by appraising officers, under sanction of de¬ 
cisions of the Department. (See Decision No. 3238, dated May 15,1877, 
and letters to collector at Boston, dated in April, 1884, not published.) 

9. The phrase “false dutiable values” seems to imply guilty knowl¬ 
edge or corrupt motive on the part of appraising officers when making 
returns of inadequate dutiable values. * It is rarely susceptible of proof 
that the action of an appraising officer which is supposed to be based 
upon his judgment is due to dishonest motive. We therefore prefer 
to attribute the failure of appraising officers at New York to make re¬ 
turns of full values to errors of judgment, indifference, negligence, and 
misconception of the law, rather than to venality or corruption. 

With regard to oaths to invoice declarations, it should be stated that 
it is only in Great Britain that such oaths are administered. This is 
done pursuant to a conventional arrangement between our Government 
and that of Great Britain, which has not been made with other coun¬ 
tries. Invoices from the continent have attached to them a declara¬ 
tion before the consul, but which is not made under oath. It is thought 
by those who are qualified to judge upon the subject that the oath ad¬ 
ministered by a British officer, as is the practice in Great Britain, does 
tend to prevent false invoicing of consigned goods. There should be 
this qualification, however, that such invoices are frequently made be¬ 
low the market value in the home market, but at the same time repre¬ 
sent the prices at which they are to be sold in the United States, as 
hereinbefore explained. Shippers taking the oath in sueb cases do so 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 347 


in good faith, according to their construction of our tariff laws, and 
according to the construction adopted in many cases by our own offi¬ 
cers. We have good reason to think that prosecutions for perjury, 
where it could be shown that the affiant deliberately made a false state¬ 
ment, could be carried on and enforced in the courts of Great Britain. 
We are informed that competent legal counsel in Great Britain have 
so advised some of our consular officers. 

10. We reaffirm our answer as to the confusion in the minds of ap¬ 
praising officers in regard to wffiat constitutes “dutiable value.” We 
recall recent statements of Assistant Appraiser Birdsall and Examiners 
Angevine and Corbet, holding to the doctrine that the actual price 
paid was the dutiable value, no matter what might be the general mar¬ 
ket value in the principal markets of the country of production. We 
do not think they are alone in this view, but that the doctrine thus 
stated prevails generally among the officers of the appraiser’s depart¬ 
ment. Appraiser McMullen, however, holds that the appraisers are re¬ 
quired to appraise and return the actual market value in the principal 
markets of the country of production, in accordance with the statute, 
and that an exceptional price below such market value at which mer¬ 
chandise is sold for export to the United States, to meet the competition 
of American producers, cannot be regarded as the market value if be¬ 
low the price at which the goods are sold to all the world. 

11. As stated in answer to No. 4, we believe that consigned goods of 
all descriptions are still passed at New York at inadequate values, | 
although improvement has been made in this regard since the present J 
appraiser has been in charge of the business. The combined opposi- f 
tion of those interested in maintaining low valuations, and the want of \ 
sympathy on the part of some of his subordinates in his efforts for re¬ 
form, make his task one of great difficulty. 

13. In stating that consular officers during many years performed 
their duties with reference to invoices in a perfunctory and indifferent 
manner, we did not desire to have it understood that these officers 
were unwilling, as a rule, to do their full duty with respect to the rev¬ 
enue. Acting under and receiving their instructions from a Depart¬ 
ment not directly interested in the customs, and receiving but little 
encouragement from the Treasury Department or customs officers when 
they did make efforts in that direction, it was not surprising that they 
should become indifferent. 

The special agent who was sent to Europe four years ago, referred to, 
was George C. Tichenor, and the readiness with which consular officers, . 
as a riffe," hdopttsd^dl^hggestions and became interested and active in 
matters pertaining to dutiable values is an indication that their pre- f 
vious failure to look after the interests of the revenues was due to a 
want of definite instructions on the subject rather than to any other 
motive. The only consular officers now in the service, so far as we are 
informed, who failed to take an active interest in these matters, are 
-,-, and-. We are informed by Special Agent Tich¬ 
enor that Mr. -— took but little personal interest in matters per¬ 

taining to invoices presented at his consulate for certification. This is 
unfortunate because of the great variety of merchandise and large 
amounts involved in invoices shipped from that consulate and the uni¬ 
versal disposition and practice of French shippers to understate values. 

15. In the absence of proof sufficient to convince an unprejudiced 
mind, we cannot say that we have reason to believe that bribery or 






348 REPORT OF THE SECRETART OF THE TREASURY. 


venality now prevent true and full returns of dutiable values by the 
appraising officers. 

17. By “the very condition of affairs as to values which now exists / 1 
as stated in the second sentence of our reply to Inquiry No. 17, we 
mean the prevalent practice of under-invoicing consigned goods which 
has been for some years past and is now so general as to many lines of 
merchandise. We think that the comparative immunity from all risk 
of punishment, either in pocket or person, enjoyed by importers since 
the passage of the anti-moiety act has tended to encourage the fraudu¬ 
lent practices by which the revenue laws are so largely evaded. 

18. It would be impracticable for consular officers at the larger con¬ 
sulates to personally examine all merchandise shipped from their dis¬ 
tricts, but it is practicable for them to inform themselves generally of 
market values. The regulations of the Department of State provide 
that consuls shall require shippers of textile goods to present with their 
invoices samples of the goods described therein, which samples are for¬ 
warded to the appraising officers, with the triplicate invoices. There 
are usually attached to the larger consulates a corps of clerks and assist¬ 
ants, whose services might be utilized in personally examining these 
samples and procuring information as to market values, so as to enable 
the consul to certify the invoices intelligently. 

In Great Britain the fee charged for the oath is equivalent to $1. This 
fee is paid to the British officer who administers the oath, and is not paid 
into the Treasury or in any way accounted for by consuls. Whether or 
not it is shared by consular officers we have no knowledge. 

24. The great increase in the number of appeals and reappraisements 
within the last few months would seem to indicate that the appraising 
officers are more active and vigilant than for some years past. We are 
still of the opiniou, however, that the actual market value is not fully 
reported to the collector upon articles hereinbefore mentioned, regularly 
consigned by foreign manufacturers to their agents in New York. 

Very respectfully, L. G. MARTIN, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, A. K. TINGLE, 

Secretary of the Treasury. Special Agents. 

I concur in the foregoing as well as in the answers of Messrs. Martin 
and Tingle, heretofore submitted, to the questions contained in the 
printed circular. Very respectfully, GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

- Special Agent. 

No. 5. 

Additional Inquiries. 

Please supplement your reply of the 19th instant, by giving date and 
text of the 1 ‘ conventional agreement 7 7 therein referred to, and the name of 
the ‘ ‘ legal counsel, ’ ’ with the text of his opinion, to whom given, and when. 

September 25, 1885. 


No. 6. 

Washington, D. C., September 29, 1885. 

Sir : Since the receipt of your memorandum, relative to answer to 
Question No. 9, in regard to oaths to invoices, we have sought access to 
the records of the Department of State for the purpose of obtaining the 
precise data respecting the origin of the custom in vogue in Great 
Britain of requiring shippers to make an oath or solemn declaration to 
their invoices before a British officer, and the failure of consular officers 
on the continent to require oaths to invoices. 



REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


349 


We find that we were in error in the statement that the practice in 
Great Britain was the result of a “ conventional arrangement” between 
that government and ours. 

It appears that for a long time prior to 1869 it was the custom of the 
consular officers in Great Britain to administer oaths to shippers, and 
that in that year the consul-general at London, in a dispatch dated 
May 8, reported that u in Great Britain a declaration or oath to be 
legal and render a person liable to prosecution for making false declara¬ 
tion or taking a false oath, must be made before a British subject duly 
appointed or authorized to administer oaths or receive declarations. 
Consequently, all declarations and oaths made before American consuls, 
when not duly authorized by the laws of Great Britain, are of no more 
legal or moral effect than if they were taken before a private citizen, 
and consuls are, in reality, liable to a fine for so acting.’ 7 

On the 26th of June, 1869, the consul-general reported that he began 
to require oaths to be taken before a British commissioner on the 1st of 
June, 1869, and it appears that since about that date this practice has 
been uniformly followed by all our consular officers in the United 
Kingdom, with the sanction of the Department of State. It is gathered 
from the official correspondence that, at the instance of the consul-gen¬ 
eral^ Mr. Joshua Nunn, a British subject, then acting as vice-consul- 
general, and who had for a long time previous been attached to the 
consulate, was appointed by the British authorities a commissioner to 
administer oaths, although Mr. Nunn did not possess the qualifications 
usually required in such cases, namely, that he should be a solicitor of ten 
years’ practice. This act of courtesy on the part of the officials of Her 
Majesty’s Government, coupled with the fact that it was only in Great 
Britain that such oaths were administered, led to the conclusion that 
that practice had been adopted by reason of a conventional arrangement 
between the two governments. While it does not appear that the 
subject has been one of conventional agreement in the strict meaning 
of the term, it is a fact that it has been expressly sanctioned and author¬ 
ized by our Government and tacitly recognized by officers of the British 
Government. 

With reference to the opinions of legal counsel in Great Britain to the 
effect that prosecutions for perjury, where it could be shown that the 
affiant deliberately made a false statement, could be enforced in the 
courts of Great Britain, it appears that the subject was one of cor¬ 
respondence between the Department of State and the consuls at Lon¬ 
don and Liverpool, in the year 1876. On the 26th of April, in that 
year, the consul-general at London reports that “the laws of this 
country do provide that the punishment of perjury shall apply to false 
oaths taken under the circumstances mentioned, when the oaths were 
taken before a duly qualified officer. * * * I believe, however, 
that in case of a legal prosecution great difficulty would be found in 
procuring evidence sufficient to convict, and the probabilities are that 
it would prove impossible.” 

The consul at Liverpool, in a dispatch dated May 8, 1876, reports 
as follows: “ I have given the subject therein named the best consider¬ 
ation I could, and I have employed an English lawyer here to exam¬ 
ine the laws and decisions of the courts of this country relating thereto. 
As the result of such investigation, I have to say that, in my opinion, 
there is a very great doubt whether or not a person is liable to punish¬ 
ment for swearing to false or undervalued consular invoices. I have 


350 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


become aware that there is a difference of opinion among lawyers here 
as to such liability, and I have not found that the point has been settled 
by the highest English courts. Therefore, the question may be con¬ 
sidered in some degree an open one, with, I think, the probability 
strongly against such liability. There seems to be no doubt that per¬ 
sons making false declarations to such invoices are liable to a punish¬ 
ment under the laws of this country. 77 

It should be here stated that the form used is a solemn declaration 
made before a duly authorized commissioner, in accordance with the 
provisions of the statutes of Great Britain, (5 and 6 William IV.) 

We are informed by Special Agent Tichenor that, in the course of 
his investigations of frauds in various classes of merchandise by ship¬ 
pers in Great Britain, who had made their declarations before British 
commissioners, he made inquiry of several different solicitors whether 
prosecutions for perjury could be maintained in case the fact of false 
invoicing could be established, and the uniform answer was in the 
affirmative. Among those so consulted were Mr. Thomas Hewitt, 

solicitor, London; Mr. J. T. Doyle, solicitor, Manchester ; Mr.- 

Richardson, solicitor, Bradford; and Mr. William Gibson, solicitor, 
Glasgow. These opinions were verbal, and we do not know of any 
formal written opinion by a British lawyer on the subject. On the 
strength of these opinions, Special Agent Tichenor recommended in 
his official reports the prosecution of certain persons whom he believed 
could be convicted of perjury. 

While it thus appears that it has been, and is the practice to have 
oaths or solemn declarations to invoices administered in Great Britain, 
it seems that efforts to establish a similar practice in France, Germany, 
and other continental countries have failed because it was found to be 
impracticable under the laws of those countries. 

The Department of State some three years ago addressed circular 
letters to certain consular officers upon this subject, and we have 
examined the replies received from a number of them, from which it 
appears that in France, Germany, and Austria there are no officers 
corresponding to those employed for this purpose in Great Britain who 
can administer such an oath or declaration as would be valid and would 
subject the person taking it falsely to punishment. The consul-general 
at Paris, in a dispatch dated May 4, 1882, states that he has submitted 
the question as to the administration of oaths to invoices in France to 
Mr. Edward Clunet, an eminent advocate of the French bar, whose 
opinion he submits. After an exhaustive discussion of the subject, the 
consul-general concludes as follows: “I must confirm tiie opinion 
expressed by my predecessors, Mr. Bigelow and General Torbert, that 
oaths to invoices of merchandise to be exported to the United States 
cannot either legally or usefully be administered by American consular 
officers, and that there is no French functionary authorized to do it in 
their stead; and that if such authority existed in theory it would be 
quite impossible to invoke its exercise in practice. 77 

The consul-general at Frankfort-on-the-Main, under date of February 
21, 1881, reports that a prosecution for perjury or false swearing could 
not be maintained in a German court where the oath was administered 
by a consular officer of the United States. He bases this opinion upon 
information received from reliable authorities on the German law, whom 
he had consulted. Generally speaking, only the courts are authorized 
to administer oaths in Germany, and that in open session. A notary 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE tREASURY. 851 


cannot administer an oath or certify the same in such a way as to form 
a basis for a prosecution for perjury. According to the understanding 
of the consul, the right of a consular or diplomatic officer of a foreign 
country to administer an oath to a German subject is not recognized 
by the Imperial Government. 

The consul-general at Berlin, February 21, 1881, reports that in the 
German Empire the crime of perjury applies only to false oaths or 
affirmations administered in the trial of criminal or civil causes, and 
that only judges can administer such oaths. 

The consul at Barmen reports that in Germany oaths are only admin¬ 
istered in criminal or civil cases and in various departments of the 
Government, and submits a legal opinion of Dr. H. H. Adami, an ad¬ 
vocate, who says: “Perjury will be punished in Germany if the oath 
was imposed by public authority. International law does not grant to 
consuls in Europe the right to impose oaths, nor is any such authority 
to be found in the consular convention between the United States and 
Germany. German laws, likewise, do not furnish any public authority 
for the administration of such oaths on invoices. Oaths sworn without 
public authority before a notary, consul, &c., are void in Germany. 77 

The consul-general at Vienna, February 12, 1881, reports that oaths 
administered by consuls in Austria-Hungary are void; that the crime 
of perjury as well as the extra-judicial administration of oaths are un¬ 
known to the jurisprudence of that country. Only judges of courts 
are authorized to administer oaths. 

The consul at Aix-la-Chapelle, under dates respectively of May 4 and 
July 23, 1874, reports that he had issued a circular to shippers to re¬ 
quire them to appear and in person sign and swear to their declarations 
to invoices before him, (which had not previously been the practice,) 
and also having summoned certain shippers to appear before him and 
give testimony under a commission from the United States district 
court of Hew York, the parties refused to appear in consequence of 
certain publications in the Germaif newspapers advising them not to 
do so and of a communication from the foreign office of the Imperial 
Government at Berlin, addressed to certain German citizens, which 
communication is as follows: 

“Office of Foreign Affairs, 

u Berlin, June 24, 1874. 

“In reply to your agreeable information of the 8th and 18th of this 
month, regarding the trial brought out against your firm by the cus¬ 
toms administration at Hew York, I have to say that the (in the ar¬ 
ticle nine of the consular convention between the German Empire and 
the United States of America, formed December 11, 1871, R. G. B. L., 
1871, S. 95) mentioned power of American consular officers to take 
statements under oath refers only to citizens of the United States, and 
that therefore for German citizens there is no cause nor obligation to 
comply to the summons of an American consul to give information on 
them. I suppose that this real matter of fact is known by your Ger¬ 
man correspondents whose examination is wished by the American 
court. 

“The Chancellor of the Imperial in representation, 

“V. BULOW” 


352 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The consul at Basle, Switzerland, in a dispatch dated February 18, 
1881, says: “The oath administered to a shipper by a consular officer 
in Switzerland is not, in the opinion of the best available authority, 
of such a nature that a prosecution for perjury could be maintained 
under it. * * * There are in the city and canton of Basle six 
notaries empowered to administer oaths and legalize sworn declara¬ 
tions. * * * It should, however, be clearly understood that the 
oath used in Switzerland in business transactions is merely a shake of 
the hand, and is of precisely the same force and meaning as that taken 
in an invoice declaration made before a consular officer. * * * 
A solemn oath, such as is taken in the United States, in which the 
Deity is invoked, is here regarded quite too sacred to be used in any 
matter of business. It can only be administered by a court of law, and 
after the person taking the oath has been solemnly prepared for it by 
a personal conference with an ordained clergyman. Such an oath is 
very rarely administered in Switzerland ; never except in cases of vital 
importance. It would be quite impossible to use it with invoice dec¬ 
larations. ’’ 

We submit herewith Executive Document Ho. 122, containing a re¬ 
port from the Department of State showing the provisions of law and 
the instructions of that Department to consular officers relating to the 
verification of invoices, together with reports of consuls as to fees col¬ 
lected. 

Very respectfully, 

L. G. MARTIH, 

A. K. TIHGLE, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Ho. 1 *7. 

Additional to Special Agents Martin and Tingle. 

Treasury Department, October 3, 1885. 

Sirs: I have your communication of the 29th ultimo, correcting 
your previous statement respecting “a conventional agreement,” and 
informing me that the existing practice of levying in Great Britain a 
tax of some 5 shillings sterling, above the $2.50 fee of the statute, on 
shippers of merchandise to the United States, began with the consul- 
general at London in 1869. The tax is a serious one on invoices for a 
small amount, and I wish to be further informed concerning it. There 
seems to be no such tax levied outside of Great Britain. In the Senate 
resolution of May 19, 1881, (Ex. Doc. Ho. 122, 47th Cong., 1st sess.,) 
the inquiry is made by the Senate whether any consular officer has been 
benefited by the additional tax said to be paid to British notarial offi¬ 
cers. In London and Belfast the total sum must be very large, and I 
observe that neither Consuls-General Badeau nor Merritt, nor Consul 
Wood, reply, as to themselves, definitely to that inquiry. You are 
directed to inquire, and report to me forthwith, what information is 
attainable by you in the Auditor’s office, or elsewhere, on that point; 
and also how much has, in your opinion, been, in London, the total 
yearly amount received for that tax thus required by the oath. 



REPORT OF TOE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 35o 


You will also inform me whether, in the light of the new information 
respecting the probability of punishment for perjury, your previously 
expressed opinions respecting the necessity and efficacy of an oath, in 
addition to a declaration before an American consular officer, are affirmed 
by you. 

Respectfully yours, 

* DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary . 

Messrs. Martin & Tingle, 

Division of Special Agents. 


• No. 8. 

Treasury Department, 
Washington , D. (7., October 6, 1885. 

Sir; In compliance with directions contained in your letter of the 
3d instant, addressed to Mr. Tingle and myself, I have the honor to 
submit the following information concerning the amount paid annually 
for administering the oath to invoice declarations (in addition to the 
$2.50 fee of the statute) at London and Belfast, as well as in all the 
other consular districts of the United States in the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland. 

Herewith enclosed is a tabular statement from the Fifth Auditor of 
the Treasury, from which it appears that the total number of invoices 
certified in all the United States consular offices in the United King¬ 
dom during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1885, was 75,971, in which 
London’s share was 19,444, and Belfast and its agencies, (Ballymena 
and Lurgan,) 4,362. 

It also appears that the number of invoices certified at London dur¬ 
ing the fiscal years 18S2 to 1884, inclusive, was as follows: 1882,16,351; 
1883, 20,887; 1884, 22,077. Add, 1885, 19,444. Total during four 
years, 78,759. 

The sum collected for administering the oath to each invoice is un¬ 
derstood to be 4s. 6d., equivalent to, say, $1.10, at which rate the amount 
thus paid at London during the above four years would equal $86,634.90, 
and in the entire United Kingdom for the fiscal year ended June 30, 
1885, the sum total would be $S3,568.10. 

As the consular officers do not report, either to the Treasury or to 
the State Department, the fee collected for administering this oath, the 
above is the only data attainable for arriving at the amount of such fees. 

I consider this estimate, however, substantially correct, it being un¬ 
derstood that the oath is administered in all cases, and that the fee 
charged has varied but little from Is. 6d. for each declaration, being 
4 s. 6d. for each set of invoices made out in triplicate. 

Where the merchandise is to be shipped in bond from port of first 
arrival to an interior port, the invoice is required to be made in quad¬ 
ruplicate, in which case the total fee per set would be increased to 6s., 
provided the additional Is. 6d: is charged for the extra invoice, which 
I assume is the case. These are not taken into account in the estimate 
above made, there being no definite data respecting the same, hence 
the amounts estimated are the minimum. 

23 A 


354 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. 


I have been unable to obtain from the Auditor’s office, or definitely 
from any other source, any information as to whether Consuls-General 
Badeau or Merritt, at London, or Consul Wood, at Belfast, have shared 
in these fees. Special Agent Tichenor, however, informs me he will 
make a special report to you on this subject. 

From all the information at my command, it would seem that the 
proportion of fraudulent invoices from the United Kingdom are fewer 
than from the continent of Europe, which fact, together with the fur¬ 
ther fact that an oath legally and solemnly administered, as this one 
appears to be, operates, as a rule, to restrain men from making false 
or reckless statements. I am still inclined to adhere to the view pre¬ 
viously expressed to you respecting the u efficacy of an oath in addi¬ 
tion to a declaration before an American consular officer.” 

The absence of Mr. Tingle in Kew York accounts fgr his failure to 
join me in this reply. 

Very respectfully, 

L. G. MARTIH, 
Supervising Special Agent. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Number of Invoices Certified at each Consular Office in the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland during the Fiscal Year ended June 30 , 1835 , as shown by Returns to the Fifth 
Auditor of the Treasury. 


Consular offices. 

Number of 
invoices. 

Remarks. 

Belfast .- . 

3,610 

73 


Ballymena. 


J,urgn n.. . . . 

679 


Birin i n pi i fi/m . 

2,640 

513 


Kidderminster. 


Redd itch. 

354 


Wolverhampton . 

122 


Pr^dford. 

6,591 

232 


Bristol . 


. 

43 


Llanelly. . . 

32 


Milford ITaven . 

No invoices certified. 

Newport . 

144 

Swansea . 

621 


Cork . 

75 


Waterford . 

No invoices certified. 

Dublin . 

542 

Limerick . 

5 

No returns for the 
March quarter. 

No invoices certified 
during June quar¬ 
ter. No other re¬ 
turns. 

2 e m i gr a nt certificates 
issued. 

Sligo . 


Dundee . 

2,728 

335 

Aberdeen . 

Dnnferml ine. . 

1 140 


Kirkcaldy . 

313 


Falmouth . 

28 


fllaso'ow . 

4,103 

20 

14 emigrant certifi¬ 
cates issued. 

Greenock . 

Gloucester . 

120 


Hull . 

312 


Leeds . 

1, 242 

1,783 

585 

1 emigrant certificate 
issued. 

Huddersfield . 



Galashiels . 

99 


Liverpool. 

9,873 

20 emigrant certifi¬ 
cates issued. 

No invoices certified. 

Holyhead... 

St. Helen’s..... 

822 











































REPORT OP TIIE SECRETARY OP TllE TREASURY. 355 


Number of Invoices Certified at each Consular Office in the United Kingdom, &c. —Cont’d. 


Consular offices. 


■London. 


Dover. 

Londonderry. 

Manchester. 

Newcastle-upon-Tyne. 

Carlisle. 

Old Hartlepool. 

Sunderland. 

Nottingham. 

Derby. 

Leicester. 

Plymouth. 

Dartmouth. 

Guernsey. 

Jersey. 

Sheffield. 

Southampton. 

Portsmouth. 

Weymouth. 

Tunstall. 

Total. 


Number of 
invoices. 


Remarks. 


19,444 


22,077 certified during 
fiscal year 1884, and 
20,887 in 1883, and 
16,351 during 1882. 
No invoices certified. 
No returns. 


6,867 

458 

178 

95 

41 


3,243 

319 

469 

33 

5 

3 

11 

1,849 

14 


1 

3,156 
75,971 


No. 9. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , B. G ., October 12, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to our several letters, elated the 6th instant, relating 
to the fee charged for the oath to consular invoice declarations in the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we have the honor 
to hand you herewith a letter, dated the 10th instant, from the Fifth 
Auditor, showing that the number of invoices certified at the United 
States consulate-general at London during the fiscal year 1882 was 
21,303, instead of 16,351, as set forth in the tabular statement furnished 
you. 

This makes the total number of invoices certified at that consulate 
during the fiscal years 1882 to 1885, inclusive, 83,711, instead of 78,759, 
and the aggregate sum received for the oath, say $92,082.10, instead 
of $86,654.90, within that period. 

As shown by the Fifth Auditor’s letter, the 4,952 invoices omitted in 
his tabular statement furnished you were certified from July 1 to Sep¬ 
tember 16, 1881, General Badeau having been succeeded by General 
Merritt on the latter date. 

Very respectfully, 

L. G. MARTIN, 

GEO. C. TICHENOR, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 






























356 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 10. 


Treasury Department, Fifth Auditor’s Office, 

Washington , October 10, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to the number of invoices reported by this office, on 
the 5th instant, as certified at London during the fiscal year 1882, namely, 
16,351, I have the honor to state that 4,952 should be added thereto, 
making the correct number 21,303 for that year. The additional in¬ 
voices were issued by the outgoing consul-general, from July 1, 1881, 
to September 16, 1881, and were overlooked in the hurry of making 
the statement, because the account was recorded at a much later date, 
the returns not having been received until December, 1882. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

ANTH. EICKHOFF, 

Auditor. 


Hon. C. E. Coon, 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. 0. 


No. 11. 

GEO. C. TICHENOR—Originally appointed Special Agent June 28, 1878. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. (7., October 6, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to your verbal request for such information as I 
possessed or could obtain respecting the participation of any of our 
consular officers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
in the fee there paid by shippers for the oath administered by British 
officers to invoice declarations, I respectfully submit the following: 

My usefulness as an agent of the Department whilst I was abroad made 
it necessary that I should cultivate and maintain the most agreeable 
relations possible with such of our consular officers as my official du¬ 
ties brought me in contact with. 

In the United Kingdom I succeeded in establishing cordial official 
relations with most of our consular officers, and in fact enj oyed the 
close friendship of a number of them. Whilst these relations afforded 
me opportunity for acquiring information respecting the precise ar¬ 
rangements existing between some of these consular officers and the 
British officers by whom the oath in question was administered, my sense 
of propriety led me to avoid rather than pursue such inquiry under the 
circumstances. Therefore, the little information I became possessed 
of on the subject whilst abroad reached me unsought, came in more 
or less fragmentary and indefinite form, and was chiefly communicated 
in such way as to render its disclosure on my part a breach of con¬ 
fidence. 

Addressing you, however, in the utmost candor and freedom, I can¬ 
not say that I have absolute, or at all direct, knowledge that any United 
States consular officer in the United Kingdom has at any time shared 
directly the fee in question ; at the same time, I am constrained to say 
that the impression in my mind is very strong that some, at least, of 
them have, and do at this time. I will state briefly my reasons for so 
believing: 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


357 


About the year 1869, Mr. Joshua Nunn, a British subject, was ap¬ 
pointed United States vice-consul general at London, having been 
nominated thereto by Mr. Morse, then consul-general there. About 
this same time Mr. Nunn, although not eligible thereto under the 
British statutes, was created a commissioner by the proper authorities 
of Her Majesty’s Government to administer oaths and authenticate 
declarations. For a long time previous to this, according to my in¬ 
formation, Mr. Nunn had been an employe of the London consulate, 
receiving, I assume, only the very moderate compensation usually paid 
such employes by our consular officers, ranging, I think, from about 
$300 to $1,200 per annum. 

During General Badeau’s term as consul-general at London, Mr. 
Nunn was continued as vice-consul general, acting at the same time as 
commissioner to administer the oath to invoice declarations. General 
Badeau having been largely engaged in literary pursuits, Mr. Nunn 
was actively in charge of the consulate much of the time. In fact, so 
far as the essential business details were concerned, particularly as re¬ 
lated to invoices, he was acting consul-general, and the fee for adminis- f 
tering. the oath to shippers was paid to him while he was so acting. Even \ 
if General Badeau allowed him to retain the whole or chief part of the V 
fee collected for this service, it was doubtless in consideration of his 
administering the office {is vice-consul general, and, even in that view 
of the case, General Badeau certainly benefited by the fee. I deem it 
highly improbable, however, that Mr. Nunn retained the whole or chief 
part of these vast fees for his own use. I learn from the Fifth Auditor’s j 
office that during the time he (Mr. Nunn) was acting as vice-consul 1 
general and as commissioner he received pay regularly from the Gov- * 
ernment for services as clerk at the consulate-general. 

After General Merritt succeeded to the office of consul-general at 
London, Mr. Nunn was removed from office as vice-consul general, 
being succeeded by Mr. Mitchell, an American citizen. He was also 
succeeded as commissioner, by Mr. Thomas Hewitt, a young English 
gentleman, who is engaged in the practice of his profession of solicitor, 
having an office near the law courts in Chancery Lane, London, and 
who attended at the consulate-general daily for a time during business 
hours to administer the oath to invoice declarations. It is shown by 
the records of the Fifth Auditor’s office that there were certified at 
the London consulate-general during the fiscal years 1882 to 1885, in¬ 
clusive, no less than 78,759 invoices of merchandise, the total sum re¬ 
ceived for administering the oath to which could not have been less 
than about $86,635, and probably exceeded that sum, since a consid¬ 
erable proportion of these invoices were made out in quadruplicate. 

I never inquired nor learned what arrangement General Merritt had \ 
with Mr. Hewitt. I assumed, however, that some understanding existed 
between them .whereby the former was liberally benefited. It does I 
not look reasonable that a shrewd man like General Merritt would 
voluntarily afford a young English stranger an opportunity to realize 
upon an average above $21,000 per annum outright for services re¬ 
quiring but a comparatively small share of his time, and no invested 
capital. I would consider $2,500 per annum most liberal compensa¬ 
tion indeed for such service. 

I am quite sure that while I was abroad the United States vice-consuls 
at most, if not all, the principal consulates in the United Kingdom, ex¬ 
cept at London, were English solicitors holding the office of commis- 


358 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Bioner, and as such administered the oath to invoice declarations. As 
a rule, these gentlemen had their offices either at the consulates or ad¬ 
jacent thereto, and certain of them within my knowledge frequently 
served actively as vice-consuls on account of the absence of the consuls. 

By reference to the tabular statement Mr. Martin has furnished you 
from the Fifth Auditor’s office, you will see that in the Liverpool, 
Manchester, Bradford, Belfast, Glasgow, Nottingham, Birmingham, 
Tunstall, Dundee, Leeds, and Sheffield consular districts the amounts 
received for the oath to invoice declarations during the fiscal year 
ended June 30, 1885, exceeded in instances very largely the salaries 
allowed by law to the consuls. 

I am well satisfied there are at all places where United States con¬ 
sulates are established in the United Kingdom respectable resident 
solicitors, either holding the office of commissioner or eligible thereto, 
who, for the sake of the distinction the title would confer and on 
account of the advantage they would thereby derive in pursuit of their 
profession, would gladly accept the office of United States vice-consul 
and administer the oath to invoice declarations for a bare moiety of 
the fee charged. In this view, it seems unreasonable, that the consuls, 
whose salaries are so small, would afford their vice-consuls and com¬ 
missioners opportunity to derive such princely incomes as it appears 
this fee yields in several instances. 

Mr. Darlington, a young solicitor, and a commissioner, was appointed 
vice consul at Bradford, upon the recommendation of Consul Grinnell. 
Early in the year 1883, in consequence of a misunderstanding between 
Consul Grinnell and Mr. Darlington, the former asked for the latter’s 
removal as vice-consul. Pending this controversy, Mr. Darlington 
informed me that when he was nominated as vice-consul he entered 
into a written agreement with Mr. Grinnell to pay over to the latter 
80 per cent, of the fees he (Darlington) received for administering 
the oaths to invoice declarations, which agreement he subsequently, 
for certain reasons, sought to annul or modify, and this led to the mis¬ 
understanding between them. He informed me it was his intention to 
report all the facts to the State Department, as well as give publicity 
to them at Bradford. At the time Mr. Darlington made these state¬ 
ments to me he was visiting London for the purpose of. conferring with 
Consul-General Merritt on the subject. Mr. Grinnell is one of the most 
industrious, faithful, and painstaking consular officers w~e have abroad, 
and if he made the arrangement mentioned with Mr. Darlington, as I 
assume he did, it is not improbable he had some precedent therefor, 
and considered the transaction entirely proper. 

The State Department has expressly sanctioned and authorized the 
payment to the British officer of a fee of one shilling and six pence 
“for each of the triplicate or quadruplicate copies of the invoice,” as 
compensation for his services in administering the oath. Article 641 
of the Consular Regulations of 1881 provides: “All such invoices must 
be in triplicate: the three copies to be regarded as one invoice , and sub¬ 
ject to only one charge for consular certificate. ’ ’ Since the declarations, 
whether in triplicate or quadruplicate, relate to but one invoice , I can 
see no propriety in treating each declaration as a separate and distinct 
instrument. There is hut one oath administered , hence I consider there 
should be but one fee of one shilling six pence charged for administer- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 359 


ing such oath. The jurat is either printed or stamped upon the blank 
forms of declarations, which are furnished by the Government, and the 
officer administering the oath has only to fill in the date and affix his 
signature thereto. I am satisfied arrangements could be readily made 
with the British officers to accept the single fee of one shilling six pence 
for this service. This tax (say, 36 cents United States currency) would 
certainly not be sufficiently onerous to cause serious complaint in any 
case. 


I hand you herewith a report I made to Secretary Folger in Septem¬ 
ber, 1882, which was referred to and printed by the Tariff Commission, 
then at work. On page 6 of this report I gave my views respecting 
the efficacy of oaths to invoice declarations as administered in the 
United Kingdom. Subsequent experience has not caused me to modify 
these views. 

Inasmuch as the consular service of the United States is supported 
mainly from invoice fees, and the chief or more important duties of 
our consular officers relate to the customs revenue, I am decidedly of 
the opinion that this branch of the service should be attached to the 
Treasury Department. From my experience abroad, I am entirely 
mtisfied that such transfer would result most beneficially to the Gov¬ 
ernment. 

I am also satisfied that our consular service requires remodelling and 
reorganization. This, I am sure, could be done in such manner as to 
largely elevate the tone and efficiency of the service without increasing 
the expense thereof. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. G. TICHENOR, 

Special Agent. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


| 


No. 12. 

A. M. BARNEY—Entered the service as Collector of Customs, Brownsville, Tex., April 

12, 1869. Was commissioned Collector of Internal Revenue in Texas February 29, 

1872, but never acted. Appointed Special Agent February 1, 1873. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Galveston, Tex., September 5, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of confidential printed Department letter dated 
on the 27th ultimo, calling for answers to twenty-four separate in- 
quries. 

In reply, I have to say that I am not in possession of data which 
would enable me to give intelligent replies to all the points raised, for 
the reason that I have not been stationed at any of the large ports of 
the country, except Chicago, since 1875 to 1877, and New Orleans from 
May, 1877, to October, 1877, and in New York on temporary and 
special service on two or three occasions in 1878, 1879, and 1880, and 
was engaged there on those occasions for a few weeks only at a time, 
and was never on duty at any of the other large Atlantic ports, so that 
I have had but little opportunity to examine into the manner of doing 
business at the larger ports of the country. 

While on duty in New York, a larger portion of my time was em¬ 
ployed in the examination of accounts of the various small customs cob 



360 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. 


lection districts which were then included in the second special agency 
district. I answer the inquiries made as follows, to wit: 

1. At the ports in the districts where I have served I know of no 
instance nor evidence that the rates of duty on imported articles have 
not been levied and collected as the law prescribes. In many instances, 
owing to the intricacies of the tariff laws and the difficulties of inter¬ 
preting the same, different rates have been collected in different dis¬ 
tricts on the same class and quality of goods. 

Merchants themselves differ from each other in the classification and 
rates of duty legally chargeable upon merchandise imported by them. 

2. If there has been a failure to collect the purely specific duties on 
imported merchandise, I attribute it to a failure on the part of those 
charged with ascertaining exact quantities, either from a lack of atten¬ 
tion to their duties, or a failure to appreciate the responsibilities de¬ 
volving upon them. 

In my experience, no satisfactory evidence of such failure exists to 
an appreciable extent. 

3. In Chicago, Detroit, and Galveston, the only ports with which I 
have been connected where textile fabrics have been imported to any 
considerable extent, the practice has been to actually measure a certain 
percentage of such fabrics. Also in cases of goods paying duty ac¬ 
cording to the fineness of the thread, the number to the square yard, 
&e., or when the duties are determined in part by the weight, an actual 
count of threads or the weight of the goods has been made by the ap¬ 
praiser, or officer acting as such, or by the examiners. In none of these 
ports, except Chicago, are there any examiners, the work being per¬ 
formed by the appraiser in person. In Chicago, while I was there, 
this work was done under the immediate and personal supervision of 
the appraiser, he performing a considerable part of the labor incident 
to such examination. 

4. While I was in Kew York on special service the subject of collu¬ 
sion between parties making entry and the officers charged with a se¬ 
lection of packages to be sent to the appraiser’s stores for examination 
and the examiners was frequently discussed by the agent in charge 
and others, and several investigations were made, which resulted in the 
dismissal of three or four clerks and deputies in the collector’s office, 
the arrest and conviction of some of the examiners, and the flight to 
Canada of others before arrest. But as I was not engaged in these in¬ 
vestigations, I am unable to give details. 

5. In the course of an investigation of the Spietzer weighing contract, 
which was made by nie, assisted by Special Agent Yevin, evidence 
was presented showing that three or four assistant weighers and fore¬ 
men had taken money from importers and the contractor for giving 
out lists of weights taken in advance of the time of making returns of 
the same to the custom-house. 

The name of one of the assistant weighers is Spicer; his foreman was 
another. His name, as well as others involved, I do not now remember. 
The superintendent was also included. All of which appears in the re¬ 
port of Special Agent Hevin and myself. It was believed at the time 
that false weights were returned to the custom-house; but as the goods 
had gone into consumption, had lost their identity, we were unable to 
procure evidence to support this belief. As proof was made, however 
that money had actually been paid by importers and the contractor 
for extra services, as it was claimed, the natural conclusion was that 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


361 


fraudulent practices entered into the transaction, as business men do 
not pay out money to Government officials without receiving value in 
some form. Not having a copy of the report, I am unable to give de¬ 
tails at this time, nor names of individuals, bnt they should be of record 
in the special agent’s office in New York and at the Department. 

It was further shown in the report that the contractor’s foremen and 
laborers had in numerous instances been allowed to read the weights 
from the beam, instead of that work being performed by the assistant 
weigher or his foremen in person. 

6. I think the law in respect to rates of duty and differences between 
importers and collectors which have resulted in suits can be amended 
so as to advance the interests of the Government and simplify the busi¬ 
ness, but am not prepared to submit any views upon the subject at 
this time. I have no knowledge as to the number of suits now pend¬ 
ing in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore; nor whether 
they can be classified, &c.; nor the number of suits; nor of the time 
each suit has been at issue and ready for trial. 

I believe a plan can be devised by the officials named in the inquiry 
by which these suits and new suits as they come up may be more 
promptly disposed of. One element of the plan, it seems to me, should 
be that this class of suits be given precedence on the docket so far as 
is consistent with public interests. 

It would seem that if the Government collect interest as a part of 
damages and costs in suits brought on bonds for recovery of duties, 
that the Government is in equity bound to pay interest at the same 
rates on suits brought against collectors for recovery of duties adjudged 
to have been illegally collected. 

I am of the opinion that the existing judicial system can be made 
sufficient if worked efficiently, and to that end a better class of district 
attorneys than those that have been appointed in some districts in the 
past should be selected, who have been mere politicians, and paid little 
or no attention to, or at least were indolent and inefficient in, the per¬ 
formance of their official duties. 

7. I have no knowledge upon this subject. 

8. I answer as above, not having been in New York for several years 
past. 

9. As to New York and the other large Atlantic ports, I am unable 
to answer this question. 

As to Detroit and Galveston, and other ports in this special agency 
district, I answer: 

There was no evidence that the appraiser at Detroit ever reported to 
the collector false dutiable values during the time I was in charge 
there. Neither was there such evidence at the other ports in that 
agency district, nor is there any such evidence in the eighth agency 
district. 

I cannot answer the latter part of this inquiry, as I have no knowl¬ 
edge upon the subject, having been stationed at points remote from 
other special agents. 

10. I have reason to believe that there is now, and has recently and 
for several years past been, much confusion, doubt, and conflict of 
opinion among local appraisers, also among collectors acting as such, 
respecting the elements to be ascertained in order to fix dutiable values. 

The tariff is so complicated in its nature that men may honestly 
differ in regard to the methods to be used in ascertaining dutiable 
values, the proper classification, and rate of duty to be assessed. 


362 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Take the matter of istle, which is imported to a large extent from 
Mexico. I understand that some of the general appraisers declare it 
to be free, under 636 of the act of March 3, 1883, while others say it is 
dutiable at $15 per ton, under 333 ft of the same act, in which latter de¬ 
cision I agree. Heyl, in his “Import Duties” book for that year, 
places it at $15 per ton. The preponderance of the decisions, however, 
place it upon the free-list, and the Department, in Synopsis No. 6293, 
changed its ruling previously made upon the subject. 

I see no reason to doubt that the time and place and the standard to 
be applied are already defined by the statutes, and yet different ap¬ 
praisers and examiners at remote distances from each other may differ 
in their construction of the statutes. It would seem that those ex¬ 
aminers and appraisers who are located near the place of production 
or manufacture, or both, of an imported article, and are familiar with 
it, are the best judges of its character, and, consequently, are the best 
judges of its proper classification and the rate of duty to be assessed 
upon the same. 

11. I do not see how a safe average can now be made of the per¬ 
centage of undervaluations, except in recent importations which have 
not lost their identity by reason of manufacture into the completed 
article of merchandise. 

12. The examiner, I think, is primarily responsible, except in those 
cases where the deputy appraiser or the chief makes or superintends 
the examination in person, for any false returns of values to the col¬ 
lector. The salary of the appraiser at Detroit, who makes his own ex¬ 
aminations, is $3,000 per annum. There are no appraisers or examiners 
in the State of Texas, the various collectors acting as such, although 
they trust the most of the work to the deputy collectors and inspectors. 
In such cases, I should say that the collector would be primarily re¬ 
sponsible for any false valuation that might be placed upon imported 
merchandise. The appraisers, as a rule, in my opinion, merely certify 
to the collector the values fixed and reported to him by his deputies 
and examiners, except in appeal cases or in case of a difference of 
opinion arising between the deputy and examiner and the importer. 

13. I have no knowledge upon this subject, although it has been a 
matter of common report that consular officers, in Canada especially, 
have been suspected of assisting importers and shippers in false evi¬ 
dence of foreign values, and it is a notorious fact that not one in ten of 
our consuls in Canada or Mexico ever see the goods to which they 
certify before their exportation to the United States, but merely sign 
the certificates of foreign value as they are presented by the shipper, 
except in those cases where the shipper has his certificates prepared 
for him in the consulate, for which a fee is charged. In such cases 
they usually make some inquiry as to the place and time of purchase, 
prices paid, &c. Even then the consular officer seldom ever puts him¬ 
self to the trouble of making a personal inspection of the goods, although 
they may be going through under consular seal. 

14. I do not know that false values have been habitually and sys¬ 
tematically reported to the several collectors. If such has been the 
practice, then it can fairly be said, I think, that the failure to collect 
the full amount of duty comes of dishonesty and a guilty knowledge of 
such false valuation on the part of the appraisers, deputy appraisers, 
and examiners, and it follows that no official would be guilty of mak¬ 
ing false returns of values without compensation of some sort from the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 3G3 


beneficiaries. It has been a notorious fact for years past that corrup¬ 
tion of this character has existed in New York. If in New York, there 
is no good reason for believing that the same practices have not pre¬ 
vailed at other ports as opportunity presented. I do not know that 
a regular corruption-fund was ever raised for this purpose, and can 
hardly believe that merchants, regular importers, would be willing to 
openly subscribe to such a fund, although it is quite probable that cer¬ 
tain brokers have procured moneys from importers to be used for this 
purpose. I have heard it stated for a fact, no names being used, that 
such was the case ; also, that money was used at the Department with 
chiefs of divisions, who pass upon such questions primarily, in procur¬ 
ing decisions favorable to the brokers’ clients. 

15. There is no reason to believe that if false valuations in the past 
have come of bribery or venality, the practice may not be as successful 
in the future, unless an exceptionally honest set of officials are em¬ 
ployed at remunerative salaries commensura f e with the duties they are 
called upon to perform. 

If business firms can afford to employ experts at salaries ranging 
from $5,000 to $10,000 per annum, with expenses added while abroad 
making purchases for their respective houses of a single line of goods, 
the Government cannot expect to procure the same sort of intelligence 
and experience and integrity in the person of one who receives at the 
highest as appraiser $4,000 per annum, and who is expected to be an 
expert as to all lines of goods imported in his district. Examiners, who 
receive a salary of $1,800 per annum, cannot be exjjeeted to be as pro¬ 
ficient in their duties, or so far above temptation simply because of 
their holding a Government position and commission, as are those 
who, engaged by business firms, receive double or treble the amount 
of wages the Government official receives. 

16. I believe that a change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
be of benefit to the revenue, and would put a stop to bribsry and cor¬ 
ruption, so far as values are concerned, and would only give a chance 
for it on the part of those officials charged with the duty of ascertain¬ 
ing quantities. So far as I am advised, the chief cause for complaint 
against officials, has been against those charged with the duty of as¬ 
certaining values. Of course, weighers, gaugers, and others may be 
bribed under specific as well as under ad valorem rates of duty, but 
the number so thrown in the way of temptation in the form of briber, 
&c., for false returns would be reduced, and I believe that the work¬ 
ing force in the appraiser’s department could be curtailed to a great 
extent without a corresponding increase in the other departments. 
The benefit to be derived from a change to a strictly specific rate of 
duty, wherever practicable, would be very great in the smaller col¬ 
lection districts, where few importations are had, and the officials have 
but scanty means of ascertaining values, whereas, if the rates were 
specific, no such difficulties would be encountered. 

I do not think, however, that specific rates of duty can be applied to 
all textile fabrics, though to many of them it can be. 

17. So far as my experience goes, there has been no perceptible 
increase of false reports by appraisers since the repeal of the so-called 
“ moiety law,” in 1874, although there has arisen since that time a dis¬ 
trust on the part of appraisers and others of their ability to force an 
increase in values honestly believed to be dutiable, as by the repeal of 
that act the burden of proving intent has been thrown upon the Gov- 


364 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ernment, and the right to examine books, papers, invoices, &c., has 
been taken away from the Government, or so hedged about with diffi¬ 
culties as to render it inoperative and void. 

The repeal of the “moiety act” has also had the effect to decrease 
to a large extent the number and value of seizures for undervaluation 
and in smuggling cases. 

The United States seems to be the only civilized country on the globe 
that does not offer a premium for information in regard to an infraction 
of its laws. 

18. I hardly think it would be practicable in large consular dis¬ 
tricts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American consuls to 
personally examine articles to be shipped thence to American ports, 
and to verify the correctness of invoiced values in each individual in¬ 
stance, but I believe it can be done in a sufficient number of cases, so 
that the consular officer would be enabled to arrive, approximately, at 
correct values. At the smaller consulates in Europe and in Canada 
and Mexico I believe such an examination and verification can be had 
without delays of a vexatious nature. I think it very likely that for¬ 
eign governments would not abstain from making complaints to this 
Government if American consuls made vexatious delays in examining 
and certifying invoices. 

I find, in looking over the invoices on file in the Galveston custom¬ 
house, that the consular fees for certifying them in London, Liverpool, 
and other points in England is fifteen shillings, (15s.) Inquiries made 
of importers in town confirm these figures. 

19. I have to say, in reply to this inquiry, that I can see no good 
reason for withholding from the executive or judicial powers greater 
jurisdiction than now exists to interfere with the ascertainment of the 
dutiable value which is to be the basis on which the collector is to levy 
ad valorem duties. It seems to me that the Secretary of the Treasury 
should be endowed with power to rehear any case that may have been 
previously passed upon by the appraisers, and that authority should 
be vested in him to review all such cases upon proper appeal, and that 
his decision should be final, subject only to a further hearing by the 
judicial powers. A limit as to time and amount involved might, in 
justice to the Government and importers, be established. 

20. A separate paper in response to this inquiry will be submitted 
as soon as practicable. 

21. It has always been my belief that in New York especially, 
passengers have paid inspectors for facilitating and hastening the 
landing and examination of their baggage; also as bribes to pass 
articles subject to duties without the payment of the same. In one 
case Inspector Gilchrist was detected and dismissed the service. 
Boarding officers have also been treated to meals while on board ves¬ 
sels arriving at that port, including wines, liquors, and cigars; and I 
hold that when such favors are bestowed upon a Government official 
by the officers or owners of such vessels, some sort of compensation is 
expected in return. As before stated, in answer to another inquiry, 
there is no way of preventing such practices except by placing the 
most tried and trustworthy inspectors in charge of the work, and by 
changing them off from time to time, so that no one officer or set of 
officers shall be exclusively employed on that duty; and that when an 
officer is caught in such dishonest practices he be arrested and tried 
for the offence; also, that the passenger paying the bribe be prosecuted 
and punished. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 365 


22. I believe that the rate of duty on many articles is too high, 
thereby offering a premium to smugglers and dishonest shippers, and 
officials as well, to attempt an evasion of the law. 

23. So far as my knowledge extends, what is true of New York in 
regard to the failure to enforce the revenue laws is generally true, and, 
for the same or similar reasons, at all the other large Atlantic and in¬ 
terior ports of the country. 

24. The only reason I can give for the failure to complain of and 
arrest and try the persons or officials concerned in making false returns 
or reports to the collectors of dutiable values is, that the guilty parties 
have made interest with higher officials through friends in Congress 
and out—lobbyists—which has been sufficient to protect them from 
punishment and discourage the person who makes the complaint. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

A. M. BARNEY, 

Special Agent . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. <7. 


No. 13. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Galveston , Tex., September 19, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department confidential circular of the 27th ultimo, 
and especially to Query No. 20, I have the honor to submit the follow¬ 
ing report, premising the same by the statement that my office is not 
supplied with the statutes, complete, which give the information 
upon which to base a comprehensive view of the subject; neither does 
the custom-house records furnish the desired data upon which to found 
a satisfactory relation of facts upon the subject, to wit: “The existing 
rate of duty on wool is a combination of an ad valorem and a specific 
rate,” &c. So far as the records show, the rate of duty on imported 
wool, imported from foreign countries previous to and including the 
year 1860, was 30 per cent, ad valorem. (Act of July 30, 1846.) 

Under the act of July 30, 1864, the rates were increased as follows: 
Value 12 cents per pound or less, duty 3 cents per pound; value over 
12 cents and not more than 24 cents per pound, duty 6 cents per pound; 
over 24 cents per pound and not more than 32 cents per pound, duty 
10 cents per pound and, in addition, 10 per cent, ad valorem; value 
over 32 cents per pound, duty 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad 
valorem. Scoured wool, three times the above rates. 

In other than ordinary condition, as heretofore practised, or if 
changed for the purpose of evading duties, or value reduced by admix¬ 
ture of dirt or other foreign substance, then the duty on all classes to 
be 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. Different qualities 
placed in same packages, the average value of which shall exceed 24 
cents per pound, the duty is to be 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, 
ad valorem. If different qualities in same packages, invoiced at same 
price, average less than 10 per cent, of the value of the best quality, as 
per appraisement, then the value of the best piece fleece or quality shall 
be taken as the standard of value of the whole bale, or invoice or bales, 
as the case may be. 


366 IMPORT OP TUP SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Under act of March 2, 1867, the rates of duty on imported wool were 
fixed as follows: 

Class 1. Clothing-wool. —Value at last port, excluding port charges 
at last port of importation, 32 cents or less per pound, duty 10 cents 
per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem ; exceeding 32 cents per pound, 
12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

Class 2. Combing wool. —Thirty-two cents per pound or less, duty 
10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; exceeding 32 cents 
per pound, duty 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

Class 3. Carpet-wools. —Value 12 cents per pound, duty 3 cents per 
pound; value more than 12 cents per pound, duty 6 cents per pound. 

The act of July 14, 1870, adds to class No. 2 “Canada long wools .” 

In other than ordinary conditions, by attempts to evade payment of 
the higher rates of duties, by admixture of dirt, &c., twice the rate of 
duties provided for is to be charged; mixed grades to pay duties ac¬ 
cording to the appraised value of the best bale, fleece, or package in 
any one invoice. Wool of the first class washed , to pay twice the rate 
charged for the same quality unwashed, and wool of all classes scoured , 
to pay three times the rate on unwashed. Wool on the skins of sheep 
or the Angora goat, unmanufactured, tvashed or unwashed , to pay duty 
at the rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem. 

The act of June 6, 1872, reduces the rate of duty on all classes of 
wool to 90 per cent, of those heretofore prevailing. 

Under the act of March 3, 1883, the rates of duty on imported wool 
were fixed as follows, to wit: 

Class 1. Clothing-wool. —Invoice value 30 cents or less per pound, duty 
10 cents per pound; value over 30 cents per pound, duty 12 cents per 
pound, and if ivashed, twice those rates. 

Class 2. Combing rvools. —Value 30 cents or less per pound, duty 10' 
cents per pound; value over 30 cents per pound, duty 12 cents per 
pound. 

Class 3. Carpet-wools. —Value 12 cents per pound or less, duty 2\ 
cents per pound; value over 12 cents per pound, duty 5 cents per 
pound. 

In all classes, if the wool is scoured , the rate of duty is to be three 
times that to be assessed upon unwashed wool; and if the several classes 
are imported in any other than their ordinary condition, as to the ad¬ 
mixture of dirt or other foreign substances, or an attempt is made to 
evade the iDayment of duty according to the true grade or quality of 
the goods, then twice the rates of duty specified in the act are charge¬ 
able. Wool on the skin to pay same rates of duty as clipped wool, 
under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury. 

It seems proper to inquire what is the true intent and meaning of 
the language of the statute as to the remoteness of the strain of improve¬ 
ment in the breed of sheep which will operate to carry the higher 
rate of duty? It is a well-known fact, I believe, that the original im¬ 
portation of Merino sheep was made into Mexico by Cortez or his fol¬ 
lowers, after the conquest of that country by him, acting under the 
authority conferred by the Spanish Government. If a remote strain of 
blood is to be carried back to that period, then all wool imported from 
Mexico should be classed as improved. 

I am led to make this inquiry or suggestion from the fact that several 
importations of Mexican wool have been made in bond for transporta- 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. 367 


tion and exportation to Canada, thence, as I believe, to be reimported 
into this country as of the lowest grade of Class. No. 3, carpet, wools, 
paying duty at the rate of 21 cents per pound, as unimproved wool of 
that class. 

I am not able to give any definite ideas or suggestions as to the work¬ 
ing of the present complicated rates of duty that are now in force, other 
than those embraced herein and in my report of the 5th instant. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

A. M. BARNEY, 

Special Agent 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. 


No. 14. 

D. A. NEVIN—Originally appointed Special Agent May 18, 1876. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New Orleans , September 8, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular 
letter of the 27th ultimo, marked 11 confidential , 71 desiring replies to a 
series of twenty-four interrogatories relating to customs laws and prac¬ 
tices of customs officers, and respectfully submit the following, with 
the remark that my experience for the past five years has been confined 
to such business as is found at the Gulf and South Atlantic ports, at 
which points less than three millions of revenue is now collected an¬ 
nually. 

To first interrogatory: I believe that in the main imports have been 
properly classified, the one important exception being that of paper 
cut into form for use in making “ cigarettes.’ 7 On the 6th of March, 
1884, on an appeal from the action of the appraiser at this port in 
assessing an importation of paper cut into forms for use as cigarettes 
at 70 per cent., as smokers’ articles, the Department decided that, as 
the paper was not the cigarette-paper of commerce, it should pay 15 
per cent., as a manufacture of paper. In June last a large importa¬ 
tion of paper cut into the same forms was made by H. Isaacs. Under 
the decision referred to, the appraiser of this port passed the goods at 
15 per cent., as a manufacture of paper. A sample of the goods having 
been submitted to the Department from this office, with a statement of 
the case, the Department decided, July 2, that the goods should pay 70 
per cent., as smokers’ articles. The difference between the two articles 
was this: the former was imported to be manufactured into a cigarette 
and then sold for consumption; the latter was imported to be manu¬ 
factured into a cigarette-book and then sold for consumption. The 
amount involved in that one invoice was $1,007, for which the Govern¬ 
ment must sue. The bulk of importations on this coast pay specific 
duties. 

2. There is no evidence in my possession to show that articles paying 
specific duty have not paid the full amount of duty. 

3. Invoice measurements are tested by actual measurement until the 
character of the manufactory for accuracy is established, after which 
less measurements are taken. Of the heavier fabrics, sections are 



368 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


measured and the weight taken, then the weights of whole pieces are 
estimated. False invoice measurements are usually the work of the 
purchaser or his foreign agent. In my experience I have never de¬ 
tected such practice in manufacturers’ invoices. 

4. At the smaller ports it is the practice to send all packages of tex¬ 
tile fabrics and fancy goods to the appraiser. The rule of sending 
one in ten is applied only to wines, case-liquors, fancy groceries, &c. 
I have no evidence of fraud or attempted fraud in this respect on the 
part of either importers or officers. 

5. I have no evidence of false weighing or measuring. There has 
been a proportion of incompetent assistant weighers employed at this 
port at all times, but their work has been closely watched and super¬ 
vised by competent men, so that I know of no recorded evidence of 
loss from this cause. The importance of this branch of the service is 
not always fully considered in making appointments for it. 

6. It is my opinion that differences between collectors of customs 
and importers growing out of decisions by those officers or the Treasury 
Department, which have resulted in suits, are due mainly to the inter¬ 
ference of brokers or revenue lawyers; that as a matter of fact it is not 
important to a general merchant what duty he pays or on what value, 
so the demand on him is made legally and is uniform in its operation j 
that as a matter of fact his wares are sold at a price based on the duty 
he pays, and not on what he ought to have paid, unless perhaps by 
error or collusion he has procured the passing of them at a rate less 
than the accepted lawful duty. Protests of the character which now 
pester the Department are not the outpourings of an oppressed mer¬ 
chant, but the appeal of a broker who is after contingent fee. I think 
the law for disposing of such suits does need amendment in such a 
manner as to necessitate their settlement within a fixed period of time; 
the interest question would then be a less important one. The 11 Charges 
and commission cases” at New York is a notorious instance in which 
brokers and attorneys received hundreds of thousands of dollars of 
interest on claims for money first paid by consumers, then sued for, 
and recovered from the United States, as unjustly paid by importers. 
I think if these suits were summarily disposed of as they arose, there 
would be less of them; but how to accomplish this lawfully I am una¬ 
ble to suggest. 

7. Have no knowledge within five years. 

8. Have no knowledge within five years. 

9. Have no knowledge within five years. 

10. There must be conflicting opinions among appraising officers and 
elsewhere regarding the elements comprising the true market value of 
merchandise, although the law seems to be quite clear. This is evinced 
by conflicting reports by the former and conflicting decisions by the 
customs division of the Department. In my opinion, revenue bills 
should, before being finally passed on by Congress, be submitted to a 
committee of practical customs officers, who would be most likely to 
detect ambiguities which, if not removed, would lead to grievous com¬ 
plications in their enforcement. The most difficult points to satisfac¬ 
torily establish are “the market” and what charges are to be considered 
as included in the value of the article— i. e., the box containing a cer¬ 
tain number of cigars, or a carton containing a dozen hose, &c. 

11. I do not think a safe estimate of undervaluation in any period 
of time can be made, for the reason that it is exceedingly doubtful if 


Report of the secretary of The treasury. 369 


wo have in any case of consigned merchandise reached the true market 
value, unless that value was arrived at from a calculation based on the 
true “ dollar price 5 ’ in the United States. 

12. In my opinion, at a port like New York the responsibility for a 
return of value must lie with the examiners, for the reason that, without 
more delay than would be tolerated, no assistant appraiser in any divis¬ 
ion could re-examine all merchandise passing through it, or even sam¬ 
ples of it. The salaries of these officers vary from $1,800 to $2,500 per 
annum. Except when cases are specially called to their attention, 
appraisers are necessarily (at the large j>orts) ignorant of the values 
certified by them, and in many instances the assistant appraiser is 
equally so. 

13. I have no knowledge on this point. 

14. While I can state that within my experience at New York false 
values were habitually certified to the collector, 1 do not think that as 
a rule such action on the part of appraising officers has come of dis¬ 
honesty. 1 know that sharp lookout was kept for collusion, and offi¬ 
cers who were discovered promptly reported by officers of the Depart¬ 
ment. In view of the many temptations that surround an examiner 
on small pay, it would be manifestly unjust to allege fraud in the ab¬ 
sence of proof that his action was not based on ignorance. I believe 
that where money or other valuable consideration is tendered to an 
officer, it is done individually, and usually by representatives of for¬ 
eign establishments, who, having little to fear in the way of competi¬ 
tion from American importers at this time, are exceedingly jealous of 
each other. 

15. I think that so long as a duty remains some will seek to avoid it 
by bringing corrupt influences to bear, and some officers will succumb 
to those influences; and nothing is so tempting to an officer with large 
responsibility in the form of a family and a small salary than a liberal 
credit at a dry-goods store with almost a certainty that the bills will 
not be presented if everything runs smoothly for the proprietor.' It 
makes things pleasant for him at home; he has received no bribe, has 
taken no present, bought! nothing at less than retail price; his con¬ 
science is easy, and lie is in no danger, for the merchant dare not move 
in the matter for reasons that are obvious. 

16. -. 

17. Undervaluations have been on the increase since the passage of 
the act of June 22, 1874. It was comparatively nothing before that 
time. The law of 1863 relating to the seizure of books and papers was 
a great protection to the revenue, and was only objectionable in the 
manner of its enforcement by certain officers. Instead of correcting 
the abuse, the anti-moiety act was conceived and became a law, at 
once destroying the importing trade in the hands of American mer¬ 
chants and turning it over to foreign manufacturers, and costing the 
revenue untold millions. 

18. I have never placed any reliance on consular certificates to in¬ 
voices, for the reason that I have rarely found their representations as 
to values correct. They have no weight with merchant appraisers, in 
case an advance is made, and I believe it physically impossible for a 
consular officer at any of the larger foreign ports outside of Canada to 
arrive at information in regard to values of shipments in a form that 
would be a reliable basis for action by an appraiser in time to make 
it available, even if the officer was inclined to risk his social position 

24 A 




370 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP ME TREASURY. 


by adopting tbe methods necessary to procure it. I would greatly pre¬ 
fer a value or price arrived at by presenting samples to the special buyers 
of the large American importing houses in New York. A well-organ¬ 
ized sample bureau in New York, with a branch in Boston and, say, 
two other ports, would be of great assistance to the service in arriving 
at true values and detecting fraudulent undervaluations. The con¬ 
sular fee for certifying invoices, without regard to amount of invoice, 
is $2.50. 

19. I believe that any plan adopted for the ascertainment of the 
true dutiable value which would command the respect of merchants 
would be a benefit to the service. To be just, it must only result in 
treating all alike. 

It is the attempts of the few to gain an unjust advantage in trade that 
creates the present confusion. 

20 . -. 

21. There is no doubt of the payment of money by passengers to 
inspectors of customs to facilitate the passing of their baggage, as well 
as to conceal smuggling in baggage; and I have never been able to 
devise but one plan for the prevention of this abuse, and that is a se vere 
one. Treat the baggage as appraiser’s packages, cause it to be ex¬ 
amined separate and apart from the passenger, and change the exam¬ 
iners frequently. 

22. The duty on many articles has been largely reduced, but smug¬ 
gling and undervaluation continue. It is not so much the desire to 
avoid the law and get goods cheaper that impels the smuggler as it 
is to gain an unfair advantage over his fellows in the trade, conse¬ 
quently, whatever the duty, he will endeavor to avoid it, in whole or 
in part. I think the evidence will show that there was more smug¬ 
gling in proportion to volume of business before the war than since 
the tariff acts of 1861. 

23. -. 

24. There are numerous reasons why the guilty parties in the numer¬ 
ous fraudulent transactions which have been brought to light in the 
past few years have not been punished, among which are— 

First. Want of such discipline in the Department as would at once 
dispense with the services of an incompetent, lukewarm, or corrupt 
official, and protect those who are competent and willing to act. 

Second. Lukewarmness on the part of the prosecuting officers of the 
Government. 

Third. The difficulty of procuring evidence sufficient to convict, for 
want of power to search for and seize books and papers. 

This report is submitted somewhat hurriedly, owing to my having 
been engaged on some special local matters continuously since its re¬ 
ceipt on the 2d instant, and now a telegraphic order requiring me to 
proceed to Key West would necessitate a longer delay than the special 
instructions in regard to the circular seemed to contemplate for a 
reply. 

Very respectfully, 

D. A. NEVIN, 

Special Agent, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 




REPORT OP TTTE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 371 


No. 15. 

B. H. HINDS—Appointed Special Agent April 15, 18G9. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York, September .18, 1885. 

Silt: 1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department’s 
printed circular of the 27th ultimo, and to submit the following in re¬ 
sponse to the several inquiries contained therein: 

Inquiry 1.—Whenever an error is made in the rate of duty against 
the importer, it is quickly detected by him or his broker, and an appeal 
taken to the Secretary of the Treasury, as provided by law. In case 
the error is against the Government, however, it is not so likely to be 
discovered, for the importer is not apt to find fault with such an assess¬ 
ment, and the advisory classification of the appraiser usually passes as 
correct in the ordinary course of business at the custom-house. 

On some articles the rates of duty prescribed by law have not been 
collected within the last few years at some of our ports. To illustrate 
this fact, I need only refer to wool at the ports of New York and Phil¬ 
adelphia,* and proprietary medicines at New York. At Philadelphia 
large quantities of cashmere fleece and cheviot britch, clearly dutiable 
under the law as wool of class 2, have for several years been passed as 
wool of class 3, whereby one-half of the legal duties have been evaded. 
Another evasion of the proper rate of duty on wool at New York and 
Philadelphia has occurred as follows : 

The duty on this article is a specific one, levied in an ad valorem 
manner. The law has always provided, since the act of June 30, 1864, 
that all charges at the last port of shipment were to be excluded in 
estimating the dutiable value. Within a few years certain shippers 
and importers have conspired to have wool, whose actual value ren¬ 
dered it dutiable at the higher rate, invoiced at a price which would 
admit it at the lower rate, and to add to the invoice as commissions or 
“charges at the last port of shipment” a sufficient sum to cover the 
discrepancy between the nominal invoice price and the price actually 
paid. The proof of this assertion is found in the various reports of 
consuls and special agents, printed in Executive Document 101 of the 
Forty-eighth Congress, first session. The efforts of consuls and special 
agents to correct this abuse by bringing the facts to the attention of 
the appraisers at New York and Philadelphia, and their failure to 
accomplish that result, are shown, to some extent, in the above-named 
document, and are otherwise known to the Department. 

The evidence as to the improper rates at which a large line of pro¬ 
prietary medicines have heretofore been passed at New York is set 
forth in a report submitted by me under date of April 21 of the present 
year, and the fact that the importers now acquiesce in the levying of 
a duty of 50 per cent, on goods that were formerly entered and re¬ 
turned as dutiable at only 25 per cent, is conclusive proof of the incor¬ 
rectness of the former classification. 

I have learned within a few days that certain merchandise imported 
for sale and clearly dutiable at 45 per cent, as “manufactures of metal” 
is being regularly passed in New York as “collections of antiquities,” 

free of duty. , 

I might cite many other instances of erroneous classification, but the 
foregoing are believed to be sufficient for the purpose. 


372 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Inquiry 2.—There is evidence that on goods paying a purely specfic 
rate of duty the full amount of duty prescribed by law has not been 
collected in some instances. This has ariseh, for the most part, from 
carelessness on the part of weighers and gaugers, a disregard of the 
provisions of the regulations, and the adoption of incorrect methods 
of ascertaining weights or gauge. 

For example: In August of last year, I received information that 
sugar was being incorrectly weighed at Philadelphia. On investiga¬ 
tion, I discovered that an arrangement h$d been made between the 
collector and the importers whereby a certain allowance in weight was 
made on each hogshead for drainage, evaporation, &c. On a large 
cargo the duty thus saved to the importer would amount to from $300 
to $500. I at once reported the facts to the Department, and the prac¬ 
tice was discontinued. 

At Boston, between the years 1867 and 1872, extensive frauds were 
perpetrated by the return of false weights of sugar by the Government 
weigher, through which loss to the revenue was estimated at some 
$40,000. The facts in this case are set forth in Department decision, 
Synopsis 4588. I believe that these cases of false or incorrect weights 
are comparatively rare, and can be prevented by a proper supervision 
of the weigher’s force. 

Inquiry 3.—Invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are tested by 
examiners, from time to time, by actual measurement of some portion 
of the invoice. 

Inquiry 4.—I am unable to give any evidence of collusion in the 
past few years between importers and entry clerks or deputy collec¬ 
tors in the ordering of false or bogus examination packages. Several 
years ago this practice was prevalent at the port of New York, but the 
adoption of a new practice, whereby entries were distributed indiscrim¬ 
inately among the ordering deputies, resulted, as was believed, in the 
breaking up of this system of fraud. It is true that such frauds are 
still possible, and could only be detected by accident or by the order¬ 
ing of other packages on the invoice by the appraiser j but I have re¬ 
cently had no suspicion of their existence. 

Inquiry 5.—I know of no false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing 
on the wharves of recent date, except that referred to in response to 
Inquiry 2. The actual weighing at the large ports is done by assistant 
weighers, who receive from $3.50 to $4 per diem. Between the dif¬ 
ferent assistant weighers at any port there will be a great difference in 
respect to judgment, accuracy, and dispatch of business. It is the 
duty of the chief weigher to supervise and instruct these assistant 
weighers, and to occasionally test their weights. Where this duty is 
properly and faithfully performed, I believe there is little danger of 
loss to the revenue through either dishonesty or carelessness on the 
part of assistant weighers. 

Inquiry 6.—As I am now situated, I have not access to the data that 
would enable me to make a suitable response to this inquiry. 

Inquiry 7.—The classes of articles on which there has been a failure 
to collect the proper amount of duty at New York during recent years, 
through undervaluation, are mainly as follows: Silks, gloves, em¬ 
broideries, hosiery, worsteds, dress-goods, china and glass ware, ani¬ 
line dyes, varnishes, and linens. 

The evidence of the failure to collect the proper amount of duties on 
these goods cannot successfully be controverted. Not only will the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 373 


testimony of honest importers be unanimous as to the fact that they 
have been practically excluded from the importation of these articles 
through the undervaluation inaugurated and successfully carried on 
under the consignment system, but the records of the courts and the 
testimony presented to the reappraising boards bear conclusive proof 
on this point. 

Inquiry 8.—This failure to check undervaluations at New York has 
come about partly through the ignorance, partly through the indolence, 
and, I suspect, partly through the dishonesty of customs officials. The 
tap-root of the whole evil, fiowever, is in the system of consignment. 

Previous to 1870, American merchants purchased in the markets of 
Europe and imported into this country all the classes of goods before 
mentioned. Little by little, however, they found themselves under¬ 
sold and outstripped in our markets by a new class of competitors, 
who received their goods directly from the foreign manufacturers at 
invoice prices greatly below the true market value, to be sold on com¬ 
mission. Had a vigorous effort then been made by our customs officials, 
aided by honest importers, the danger might have been averted or 
reduced to a minimum; but, unfortunately, this was neglected, and in 
a very short time the American merchants were compelled to procure 
the goods needed in their trade from these consignees, and, as the for¬ 
eign manufacturers were then so strong in their position as to refuse to 
sell to American importers except through their consignees, appraising 
officers soon lost the means of ascertaining the actual market values. 

It is, perhaps, worthy of remark that the gross abuses of this con¬ 
signment system sprang up directly after the passage of the act of 
June 22, 1874, u to amend the customs laws and to repeal moieties,” 
which act repealed substantially all former acts providing for the seiz¬ 
ure of books and papers, and rendered the punishment of offenders or 
the confiscation of goods extremely difficult, by providing in section 16 
that the intent should in all cases be submitted to the jury as a separate 
proposition. 

It is true that the act referred to seems to provide for the seizure of 
books and papers, but under such conditions as to enable the dishonest 
importer to suppress the evidences of his crimes and baffle the ends of 
justice. 

But even with all the disadvantages arising from that act, the reve¬ 
nue need not have suffered to so great an extent, nor the business of 
honest importers been so seriously affected, if appraising officers at New 
York had availed ^themselves of the power placed in their hands by 
section 2922, Revised Statutes, which authorizes them to call importers 
before them and examine them under oath, and compel them, under 
penalty, to procure all papers and records tending to show the true 
market value of any imported merchandise. The facts that might 
have been elicited from such an examination would have enabled the 
appraising officers, in most cases, to protect the interests of the Gov¬ 
ernment. 

It is very difficult to discriminate between dishonesty and ignorance 
on the part of appraising officers in their action as to market values. 

By section 2902, Revised Statutes, appraisers are made the sole judges 
of value, and it is next to impossible to examine the mental operations 
which have led to any conclusion on their part. What would seem to 
one appraiser to be conclusive proof of undervaluation would perhaps 
fail to convince another who was equally honest j and even when a 


374 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


false return may have been procured by bribery, the appraiser or ex¬ 
aminer can usually find “reasons as plenty as blackberries” to justify 
or excuse his action; and in that case his j udgment, not his honesty, 
is usually called in question. 

I know of no reliable legal evidence to show guilty knowledge or 
conspiracy on the part of the higher class of Treasury or customs offi¬ 
cials, though my suspicions have often been aroused at what appeared 
to me to be most extraordinary conclusions and actions on their part. 

The articles affected by such a practice would be those mentioned 
in my response to Inquiry No. 7, and nearly*all others bearing a high 
ad valorem rate of duty. The places from which these articles are 
shipped are chiefly as follows: Lyons, Zurich, Horgen, and Elberfeld, 
for silks; St. Galle, for embroideries; Berlin, Naples, Brussels,Aix-la- 
Chapelle, and Paris, for gloves; Bradford, Breslau, Kiel, and Brunn, 
for worsteds; Berlin and Paris, for dress-goods; Chemnitz, for hosiery ; 
Prague, Sonneberg, and Limoges, for glassware and china; London 
and Liverpool, for varnishes ; Belfast and Dunfermline, for linens; 
Berlin, Basle, Lyons, and London, for anilines. These articles are for 
the most part shipped by the manufacturers to their agents or con¬ 
signees in New York. At the other large ports there are occasional 
instances of undervaluation and incorrect returns by appraising officers, 
but not in the same proportion nor as systematically conducted as at 
New York, for the reason that there are very few consignees of foreign 
merchandise outside of that port. 

In cases where consuls or special agents have called attention to un¬ 
dervaluations and false or incorrect reports of values by appraisers, 
they have usually submitted proofs of actual market values, frequently 
over the signatures of the very shippers whose goods are claimed to be 
undervalued. 

Inquiry 9.—As to the conclusiveness of the evidence that false duti¬ 
able values have been returned by the appraisers to the collector, I 
would say substantially as in response to Inquiry 8, that it is, in almost 
all cases, difficult to prove whether the values have been returned 
falsely— i. e ., corruptly —as the result of bribery, or are due to the care¬ 
lessness or ignorance of the appraising officers. In the case of bribery, 
(which I firmly believe has, to some extent, prevailed in New York, 
though I am unable to present legal proof of it,) the only parties who 
would have a knowledge of it are the importer and the official, and 
only the merest chance would ordinarily lead to its detection. 

From 1869 to 1874 several instances of such corrupt payment of 
money by importers to customs officers were discovered through the 
seizure of the importers’ books and papers, under the then existing 
laws; and as recently as 1880, in a case of improper classification of 
church vestments brought to light by Special Agent Tichenor, it was 
found that the importing firm had paid an assistant appraiser and an 
examiner large sums of money “in the way of loans.” 

The reporting of false or incorrect values to the collector, either cor¬ 
ruptly or through ignorance, has undoubtedly been in operation ever 
since a high ad valorem rate of duty»was imposed, and will exist as 
long as such a tariff remains in force. The temptation of large illegit¬ 
imate gains, offered by such a tariff, are too great to be resisted by 
many importers who are otherwise considered honorable men, and un¬ 
der various guises of loans and presents they do not hesitate to influence 
the action of appraising officers when occasion offers. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. 375 


Inquiry 10.—There is considerable doubt or confusion in the minds 
of many examiners, assistant appraisers, and appraisers as to whether 
they ought not to take the sale price of a commodity purchased bona 
Me in open market as the dutiable value, even when such sale price is 
known by them to be below the ruling market value, and has been 
purchased at a discount conceded to the purchaser in consideration of 
the extent of the purchase, the retention of his custom, or other out¬ 
side considerations. Even the Department has in one notable in¬ 
stance taken the ground that such sale price was to be considered the 
market value; for in a letter to the collector at Boston, dated April 
21, 1884, ( U H. B. J.,”) relative to a very large importation of worsted I 
yarn at that port by the Washington Mills, at an invoice value notori¬ 
ously below the ruling price at Bradford, the Department decided that 
if there were two wholesale prices, one for the English market and 
another and lower price for the United States, the latter might be 
taken as the basis for the assessment of duties. 

I beg leave to call particular attention to this extraordinary letter, 
which, though it seemed to revolutionize the methods prescribed by 
laAV for the ascertainment of market value, was never published in the 
synoptical series. The tendency among appraising officers in cases of 
bona fide purchases is to take into consideration what appears to them 
to be the equity of the case, and to adopt the sale price as the market 
value. 

It is true that the time, place, and standard to be applied in deter¬ 
mining dutiable values are already defined by seetion 2900 of the Re¬ 
vised Statutes, which makes it the duty of appraising officers “by all 
reasonable ways and means in their power, to ascertain, estimate, and 
appraise the true and actual market and wholesale prifee (any invoice 
or affidavit thereto to the contrary notwithstanding) of the merchan¬ 
dise at the time of exportation and in the principal markets of the 
country whence the same has been imported into the United States.” 

In the majority of cases, however, the examiner, either through 
what he considers to be an “equitable view of the matter,” through 
ignorance of the ruling market rates, or confidence in the integrity of 
the importer, is content to accept such invoice values as correct. 

Inquiry 11.—On the classes of goods named in response to Inquiry 7, 

I believe it would be safe to say that for the past eight years there has 
been an average undervaluation of 20 per cent., and on silks not less 
than 30 per cent. It would be impossible to identify the articles now, 
except such as may be represented by sample at the appraisers’ offices. 
The invoices can be in most cases identified, but in the absence of the 
goods or samples they would be of little use. 

Inquiry 12.—In the ordinary course of business, the examiner is 
primarily and chiefly responsible for a false return to the collector. At 
New York, for instance, the appraiser’s office consists of ten divisions, 
and these again are subdivided so as to secure an expert examiner for 
each class of goods. Except in cases where information is received 
from outside sources, the appraiser would not be likely to have his 
attention called to the values returned by the various examiners. At 
this port, wherefrom 800to 1,000 invoices are acted upon daily, it will 
be seen that it is physically impossible for the appraiser to scrutinize 
all the invoices and correct erroneous returns of values, even if he had 
a universal knowledge of market values. 



376 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The assistant appraisers are obliged to devote a considerable portion 
of their time to the general business of their office, preparing reports 
on cases of appeal from their decisions as to rates of duty, official corre¬ 
spondence, and meeting importers or their agents on current work, so 
that only a small part of their time can be devoted to the question of 
values. It generally happens that an assistant appraiser is particularly 
familiar with the market values of certain lines of goods in his division, 
and will give personal attention to those lines, but rely on his exami¬ 
ners for the correct appraisement of other lines. I am now speaking 
of the ordinary course of business in the absence of suspicion or out¬ 
side information. Of course, both the appraiser and assistant ap- 
p raiser, on the receipt of information as to the undervaluation of any 
particular line or invoice, would give the matter their personal at¬ 
tention. 

The salaries of examiners at the principal ports range from $1,200 to 
$2,500 per annum. Ordinarily the appraisers at the large ports do 
little more in respect to market values than to certify to the facts found 
by the examiners. 

Inquiry 13.—I have no knowledge that any Government officials in 
the consular department or elsewhere have assisted, consented to, or 
connived at the presentation to the appraiser of false values, except 
as hereinbefore stated. 

Inquiry 14.—As indicated in response to Inquiry 8, it is generally 
difficult to determine whether the reporting of false or incorrect values 
to the collector has resulted from the dishonesty or ignorance of the 
appraising officers. Obstinacy or stupidity on the part of an assistant 
appraiser or his personal relations with the importer are sometimes 
liable to be construed into dishonesty. Actual bribery, from the very 
nature of the case, is extremely difficult of legal proof. My belief is 
that it has been resorted to in various ways, though I am unable to 
furnish such legal proof as would be sufficient to convict. If money 
has been paid to procure false reports or returns as to market values, 
it has most undoubtedly been paid by the importers or consignees di¬ 
rectly interested in the transaction, and the corruption-fund has been 
raised and disbursed by such dishonest importers and consignees. Each 
case has had its own peculiarities, and each importer has acted on his 
own account. I have no suspicion that any general fund of this nature 
has ever been raised for such purpose. Corruption of this sort known 
to a large number of persons would almost inevitably leak out by ac¬ 
cident or through the malice or fear of some one of the conspirators. 

Inquiry 15.—So far as the false undervaluations have come from ve¬ 
nality or bribery, there is little reason to hope that, under similar con¬ 
ditions, they will not be as successful in the future as in the past. 

So far as they have resulted at New York from ignorance or indolence, 

I believe they will be in a great degree overcome by the methods adopted 
and the changes in the personnel of the office that may be recommended 
from time to time by Appraiser McMullen. 

Inquiry 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates would greatly 
help to diminish a tendency to bribery, or at least make it more diffi¬ 
cult to accomplish fraudulent results by such means, for the reason 
that while it is next to i mpossible to guard against false values where the 
appraiser is constituted by law the sole judge, it is comparatively easy, 
with proper supervision, to control the matter of weight, gauge, and 
measure. A false weight is a physical fact easily susceptible of proof, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


377 


but the detection of false values requires expert knowledge, sound 
judgment, and untiring vigilance. 

I believe that a specific rate can be applied to all textile fabrics 
after proper investigation and analysis; but unless extreme care be ex¬ 
ercised, a specific rate of duty on such goods will result in very dispro¬ 
portionate amounts or percentages of duty on goods of the same lines but 
of different grades and values. If. however, it should, be found that a 
wholly specific rate would work unjustly on a few lines, so as to amount 
to a phohibition on the lower or less valuable grades, then the difficulty 
might be obviated by imposing a compound duty wherein the ad va¬ 
lorem rate imposed should to some extent equalize the percentage of 
duties between goods of inferior and superior qualities and values. This 
ad Valorem rate, if any be found necessary, should not exceed 15 per 
cent., so that no benefit could result to importers from undervaluations 
unless such undervaluations were so gross as to be detected. 

Inquiry 17.—Undervaluation and false or incorrect reports by ap¬ 
praisers have undeniably increased since the passage of the act of 
June 22,1874. That act so modified all previous legislation, especially 
in respect to the seizure of books and papers and the kind and amount 
of proof required to convict an offender or confiscate his goods, that 
defrauders of the revenue have had very little fear of the laws from 
that day to this. 

Inquiry 18.—In the large consular districts it would not be practica¬ 
ble for consuls to personally examine the articles shipped to this coun¬ 
try or to verify the invoice values, except in the case of staple goods 
whose values are well known. The late consul at Liverpool published 
weekly, for several years, for the information of collectors and ap¬ 
praising officers, a price-list of the leading articles of this character 
shipped from his consular district, and the information so furnished 
was frequently found to be of great value. In respect to goods whose 
price depends on newness or desirability of pattern, or other adventi¬ 
tious reason, the consuls would not be able by any means at their 
command to report the true value of every shipment. 

It is quite probable that foreign governments would, through their 
proper representatives, protest against unnecessary and vexatious de¬ 
lays to which their citizens, shipping goods to this country, might be 
subjected by the consuls if an attempt should be made to verify the 
correctness of every invoice. 

The fees now exacted on every invoice is $2.50, and in addtion to this 
there is, in the United Kingdom, a fee of 2 shillings, or 50 cents, for 
the oath administered by a local magistrate as to the correctness of 
the invoice. Elsewhere than within the United Kingdom no oath is 
required on an invoice—only a declaration. Certified invoices are not 
usually procured on shipments of less than $100 in value, as collectors 
are by law authorized to admit such goods to entry, in their discretion, 
without a certified invoice. 

Inquiry 19.—While there may be objections to the present method 
of ascertaining and finally determining dutiable values by a general 
appraiser and merchant appraiser, on the ground that the general ap¬ 
praiser is not usually an expert, and the merchant may be either a 
ri val or a confederate of the importer, I am, nevertheless, of the opinion 
that substantial justice is generally secured both for the Government 
and the importer when proper care has been exercised by the collector 
in selecting the merchant appraiser. A decision of such questions by 


378 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the judiciary, under the rules of legal procedure, would necessitate the 
creation of a new court, or at least additional judges; the expenses at¬ 
tending such trials would be enormous in the aggregate, and the delays 
would be more serious to importers than any inconvenience they may 
now suffer from an occasional error on the part of the reappraising 
board. 

At New York there are from 1,000 to 1,500 appeals annually from 
the appraiser’s returns of values. The amount involved in cases of 
reappraisement is not usually very large, and an appeal from the action 
of the appraiser to a court would involve so large an expense to the 
importer, in .the way of court and counsel fees, as, in most cases, to 
discourage him from taking such an appeal. The present system is 
plain, practical, and inexpensive, and neither the Government nor 
honest importers have occasion to complain of it. 

Inquiry 20.—The first legislation after 1860 in respect to the duty on 
wool was the act of March 2, 1861, which provided that on all wools 
of less value than 18 cents per pound there should be levied a duty of 
5 per cent, ad valorem; on wools valued at above 18 and not exceeding 
24 cents per pound, a duty of 3 cents per pound, and on all valued 
above 24 cents per pound 9 cents per pound. It will be observed that 
there was no distinction made between the different classes of wools, 
but the duty was levied according to value alone. 

By this act the duty on cheap wools was only 5 per cent., while on 
the more valuable qualities it ranged as high as 38 per cent. Evi¬ 
dently the home producers were dissatisfied with this low rate of duty 
on cheap wools, for in the next revision of the tariff, by the act of June 
30, 1864, the limit to the value of low-duty wool was reduced from 18 
cents to 12 cents per pound, and the rate advanced from 5 per cent, to 
3 cents per pound—an equivalent of 25 to 50 per cent., according to 
value. The rates on higher-priced wools were also advanced, but not 
in the same proportion, and no reference was made to different classes 
of wool. 

It was undoubtedly anticipated that only the lowest grade of wools, 
viz., carpet-wools, could be imported at the rate of 3 cents per pound, 
but it was soon discovered that merino wool, which, by this time, was 
being extensively raised by our farmers through an improvement in 
their flocks stimulated by the great demand for better wools, was 
coming into the country at the lowest rate in competition with our 
blooded wools. To prevent this, the act of March 2, 1867, was framed, 
on an entirely new plan, and provided for the division of wools, accord¬ 
ing to character, into the three classes, viz., clothing-wool, combing 
wool, and carpet-wool. 

The rate of duty on carpet-wools was retained substantially as fixed 
by the act of June 30, 1864, but on merino and other blooded wools it 
was materially advanced to protect the blooded wools then constituting 
so large a part of the home product, and by doubling the rate on washed 
and trebling it on scoured the duty on clothing and combing wool was 
made practically prohibitory on low-priced wools of these two classes. 
This classification of wools by character or blood, which seemed to 
render an evasion of duty impossible, has been continued from that 
day to this without alteration, and the identical language of the act of 
March 2, 1867, as to the manner of classification is reproduced in the 
act of March 3, 1883. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 379 


The only other legislation touching the rates of duty on wool is the 
act of June 6, 1872, which simply made a uniform reduction of 10 per 
cent, in the duty on all wools, as well as on many other classes of mer¬ 
chandise, and the act of March 3, 1883, which reduced the duty on 
carpet-wools from 3 and 6 cents per pound, according to value, to 2? and 
5 cents per pound, without changing the line of demarcation between 
the high and low duty values. 

On clothing and combing wools, on which the act of March 2, 1867, 
had levied a compound duty, the ad valorem rates of 10 and 11 per 
cent. w~ere removed ; but this was to some extent offset by reducing the 
line between the high and low duty limit from 32 to 30 cents per pound. 
At present, therefore, the duty on all classes of wool is purely specific. 
The amount of the duty under the act of March 3, 1883, expressed in 
an ad valorem form and on wools of average values, is approximately 
as follows: 

On wools of class 1, clothing-wools, 40 to 50 per cent. 

On wools of class 2, combing-wools, 40 to 50 per cent. 

On wools of class 3, carpet-wools, 25 to 35 per cent. 

Except as stated in response to Inquiry No. 1, very little difficulty 
has been experienced in administering the laws governing the rates of 
duty on wools of classes 1 and 2, for, except in cases of wilful ignorance, 
or contempt of information such as was exhibited in that instance, ap¬ 
praising officers have always been able to discriminate between the 
different classes of wool specified in the various tariff acts. In respect 
to wools of class 3, however, much trouble and confusion has arisen 
at the principal ports of the country as to the market value and the 
consequent rate of duty. 

The dividing line between wools of this class was fixed at 12 cents 
per pound. This is a most unfortunate point, for it so happens that 
the market value of Scotch White Highland, Donskoi, and Cordova 
wools, that constitute this class, is usually hovering very closely around 
this very figure, more often above than below it, and the temptation to 
evade the payment of the legal rate of duty, when the cost price has 
been a trifle above the low-duty limit, by having the wools invoiced at 
a small fraction below 12 cents per pound, and supplying the deficiency 
between the true cost price and the nominal invoice value by fictitious 
commissions or “charges at the last port of shipment,” has already 
been adverted to in my response to Inquiry No. 1. 

If the dividing line could be fixed at 15 cents per pound instead of 
12, it would obviate much of the trouble, for the reason that the aver¬ 
age quality of White Highland, Donskoi, and Cordova carpet-wools, 
which come very little in competition with American wools, would 
then be admitted at low duty, and there would be less difficulty on the 
part of appraising officers in determining the true market value of such 
wools of this class as were worth more than 15 cents per pound. 

* Even if all carpet-wools, irrespective of value, should be admitted 
at, say, 3, or possibly 21, cents per pound, I believe that the revenue 
from this source would be as great as at present, and a sufficient pro¬ 
tection afforded to American wool-growers, while much perjury on the 
part of shippers and importers would be avoided and the rights of hon¬ 
est importers better protected. 

Inquiry 21.—The only instances that have ever come to my notice of 
the payment of money by passengers to inspectors for the purpose of 
having their baggage expeditiously examined, or for the purpose of 


380 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


preventing an examination of such baggage, have occurred at New 
York. That such a practice formerly was quite general at that port 
is well known, and that it exists now, though in a somewhat subdued 
form, is a matter of belief. 

The only efficacious means of extirpating this illegal practice lies in 
the constant vigilance of the chief officials in the surveyor’s office at 
that port, and the immediate discharge and punishment of any in¬ 
spector detected in accepting such bribes. 

Inquiry 22.—As a general rule, it is obvious that dishonest shippers 
and smugglers will be incited to evade the law in proportion to extent 
of the rate of duty levied on a given article. 

There are many considerations, however, that modify this general 
rule. With respect to the successful perpetration of frauds in under¬ 
valuation, for instance, not only must the inducement for evading the 
high rates of duty exist, but the goods must be of such a character or 
manufactured under such circumstances as to effectually conceal their 
actual cost or market value, and render a false statement as to their real 
value plausible. On staple articles whose values, except as affected by 
the legitimate fluctuations of trade, are well known, successful under¬ 
valuations are not practicable, except through the venality of appraising 
officers. 

The duty on steel and its manufactures, for example, is very nearly 
as high as on silks, but the actual market value of steel in England is 
in most cases known to the trade and to appraising officers, and under¬ 
valuations are comparatively rare. 

In respect to smuggling, not only must the rate of duty be sufficiently 
high to induce the risk of detection, but the articles must be such as 
can be easily handled, valuable in proportion to their bulk, and such 
as command a ready sale among a class of purchasers who are not dis¬ 
posed to be too curious about the manner of their importation. 

The duty on diamonds is only 10 per cent, and on sugar 80 j>er cent., 
but large quantities of diamonds are smuggled annually, on account of 
the ease with which they can be handled and disposed of, while sugar 
is too bulky for such manipulation. For the purposes of the smuggler, 
it matters little whether the duty on an article be ad valorem or a 
specific, provided the other essential conditions attach to it. For ex¬ 
ample. The duty on ‘ • oil of bay leaves, ’ ’ from which bay-ru m is manu¬ 
factured, is a specific one, $2.50 per pound, and while every toilet-stand 
and barber shop in the country is bountifully supplied with bay-rum, 
the records of the custom-houses will show that the quantity legiti¬ 
mately imported is infinitesimally small. The smuggler has had a 
practical monopoly of this article for many years. 

Most undoubtedly, however, other things being equal, the dishonest 
shipper and the smuggler will both be powerful in the successful 
evasion of the law in proportion to the rate of duty levied on a given 
article of merchandise. 

Inquiry 23.—What has been true of the failure of the Treasury De¬ 
partment to fully enforce the revenue law T in New T York has been also 
true, to some extent, and for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic 
ports, and at some of the interior ports as well. 

The proportion of undervalued invoices is not so large at any of the 
other ports as at Nev T York, for reasons that will naturally suggest 
themselves, yet the fact remains that undervaluations are being con¬ 
stantly attempted and often discovered at all the larger ports of the 
country. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 381 


Inquiry 24.—My responses to Inquiries 8, 9, and 14 travel over some 
of the ground covered by this inquiry. 

Wherever appraising officers have been detected in making false 
reports or returns, through bribery or venality, as in the case in New 
'York in 1880, cited by me in response to Inquiry 14, and others of -an 
earlier date, they have been promptly dismissed and indicted. In 
some cases they have been convicted, but I regret to say that in many 
instances political and social influence has succeeded in shielding them 
from the punishment due to their crimes. 


It is not easy, however, to secure, sufficient proof to convict in most 
cases, since the only person who can usually testify to the corrupt re¬ 
ceipt of money by the officer is the only person who has a vital interest 
in suppressing such testimony, and the officer can always claim that 
while he may have been mistaken, he acted according to his best judg¬ 
ment and with an honest purpose. 

The chief and almost only remedy hitherto found effective in such 
cases is a dismissal of the officer on the ground of ignorance or indo¬ 
lence, but with a reserved suspicion of bribery. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

B. H. HINDS, 

Special Agent . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 16. 

IRA AYER, Jr.—O riginally appointed Special Agent March 3, 1870. 

Office of Special Agent, Treasury Department, 

New York , October 6, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of Department circular, dated August 27,1885, 
and marked u strictly confidential, 7 ’ calling for official replies to cer¬ 
tain inquiries, twenty-four in number, relative to the administration 
of the customs laws. 

In reply, I beg to state that the questions are so comprehensive that 
it will be impossible for me to answer many of them with that detail 
which is desired. This is particularly true for the reason that my time 
has been so fully occupied, as agent in charge of the district, with cur¬ 
rent important work, that I have been unable to devote any time what¬ 
ever to the specific inquiries as made. 1 will answer, however, the 
best I can the interrogatories in the order propounded. 


Answers. 


1. I was stationed at the United States public stores at this port from 
July, 1881, to January, 1885, when I was placed in charge of this office. 
During that time it was my duty to look after appraisements. After 
the late Appraiser Ketchum was appointed, and before he had long 
occupied the position of appraiser, the feeling became generally preva¬ 
lent among customs officers and in the trade that it was useless to attempt 



382 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


to secure just and proper valuations of imported merchandise. Goods 
were not unfrequently advanced by intelligent and earnest examiners, 
who knew their duty, but who were subsequently instructed by the ap¬ 
praiser to pass the goods at the invoiced values. It was generally be¬ 
lieved, and was a matter of general comment, that certain lawyers, influ¬ 
ential at Washington and near the appraiser, exercised strong control over 
that officer, a control and influence which could only be accounted for 
upon the hypothesis that there were mutual interests and obligations— 
personal, political, and moneyed—that bound them together. It is im¬ 
possible to prove these things, because the whole business of underval¬ 
uations was carried on under the* forms of law. Evidence that should 
have satisfied an honest and faithful officer of the Government that 
goods were undervalued was, so to speak, thrown into the waste-basket 
as so much trash, while agents of the Department at home and abroad, 
and reputable merchants, who complained that their business was being 
ruined by the system of undervaluations, were either coldly repelled 
or were subject to open or covert indignities and slurs. 

2. I have no evidence that such is the case. 

3. By actual measurement, but I am of the opinion that these ver¬ 
ifications are not as thorough as they should be. 

4. I have no evidence upon this point. 

5. I have no evidence upon this point. 

6. I answer the last clause only, as there are many whose position 
and experience will enable them to answer the inquiries preceding 
more intelligently than myself. 

In my opinion, the present system of reappraisement on appeal in 
the matter of values, and the existing judicial system, in cases of ap¬ 
peal to the courts upon questions of classification, are sufficient if 
worked efficiently. A court might be established at this port whose 
sole business should be to attend to all customs cases, but I doubt the 
desirability of such a court elsewhere. 

7. Silks, Hamburg edgings and laces, bisque, china, and glass ware, 
wool, aniline dyes, varnish, and linens. It is not. 

8. In the case of the three lines of goods first named, chiefly through 
the manufacturing and consignment system, and in the case of bisque, 
china, and glass ware, by false packing charges, improper discounts, 
and false values on the face of the invoice. In the case of kid gloves 
and aniline dyes, varnish and laces, by false values on the face of the 
invoice. In the case of wool, by false packing and other charges, and 
false face values. The evidence as it applies" to appraising officers at 
this port, under the former regime , is to my mind strongly circum¬ 
stantial. (See answer to the first interrogatory.) 

9. (1) Under Appraiser Ketchum’s administration. 

(2) Articles as stated under Interrogatory No. 7. 

(3) Chiefly France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Russia, Scot¬ 
land, England, and Ireland. 

(4) Generally consigned to agents or “sole agents’ 7 to sell on com¬ 
mission, or to persons owning a, part interest or a controlling interest 
in the foreign manufactory. 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 383 


(5) My statements apply principally to the port of New York. A 
strong presumptive evidence of the correctness of the foregoing state¬ 
ments is the fact that under the present appraiser values have been 
advanced upon practically the same proofs submitted by agents of the 
Department, consular officers, and others, as were submitted to Ap¬ 
praiser Ketchum without results. Appraiser Ketchum gave only a 
fraction of his time to his official duties, and assigned certain lines of 
goods to certain examiners, whom he expected, apparently, to be 
diligent only in getting the goods off from their floors with superficial 
examinations. I refer particularly to the examiners, Lawrence and 
O’Hara, in charge of bisque, china, and glass ware. The contrast 
between the manner in which these officers did their work and the 
present efficient examiner does his is very striking, while the gratify¬ 
ing results are observed with pleasure by all who are interested in the 
cause of good government. 

10. There has been apparent confusion of ideas in regard to what 
constitutes true foreign market value, but it is believed that the law 
and regulations are as explicit as necessary upon this point. Much 
confusion has arisen from the provision of the new tariff relative to out¬ 
side packages. These are believed to be in process of adjustment. 

11. Estimated undervaluation of silks, 121 per cent.; Hamburg edg¬ 
ings and laces, 25 per cent.; bisque ware, (some houses,) 50 per cent.; 
chinaware, (some houses,) 25 per cent.; glassware, (some houses,) 25 
per cent.; kid gloves, (some houses,) 20 per cent.; aniline dyes, 25 per 
cent.; linens, 15 per cent.; wool, third to second class; varnish, 12 per 
cent. Articles could not be identified. Invoices might be, but without 
practical benefit. 

12. The examiner, but frequently the deputy appraiser, and in many 
special cases the appraiser. 

Salaries of examiners, $1,800 to $2,500 per annum; of deputy ap¬ 
praisers, $3,000 per annum; of appraiser, $4,500 per annum. 

He is, and should have intelligent and controlling charge of ques¬ 
tions of values, as they are constantly raised. Where no questions are 
raised, his approval of the returns to the collector is generally perfunc¬ 
tory. 

13. I know of no such evidence. 

15. The question is easily answered. The reason is, that under Ap¬ 
praiser McMullen everything is changed. That officer is at his post 
during office hours, and gives his sole attention to his official duties. 
His methods are direct and vigorous. He only inquires as to law and 
fact. His decisions are quickly reached and boldly announced. He is 
a man of single purpose. He has brought about many reforms in his 
department, both in its personnel and its organization. He is honest, 
fearless, just, and faithful, and his influence for good is necessarily felt 
throughout his department, and indeed throughout the entire customs 
service at this port. 

16. It would be a benefit undoubtedly with some lines of goods, and 
would certainly aid to diminish a tendency to bribery in appraise¬ 
ments. I am not prepared to answer the last inquiry under this head. 

17. I am unable to answer directly, not having been on duty at a 
large port prior to 1874. It is generally considered that the repeal of 


384 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the “ moiety law” has done much to encourage undervaluations. I do 
not think tiie modified legislation of 1874 respecting seizure of books 
and papers has much to do with false returns by appraisers. 

18. To the first inquiry I should say not, with anything like a rea¬ 
sonable force. The second inquiry I am unable to answer, being unfa¬ 
miliar with the business of the various consulates. To the third inquiry 
I answer that I think many complaints would be likely to arise. The 
last inquiry will be better answered by those entirely familiar with the 
facts. 

19. On the other hand, I think that a change which should enable 
importers to appeal to the courts on questions of value would be highly 
prejudicial to the interests of the customs revenues. We have already 
had the experience of court methods on reappraisement at this port. 
This system was carried to a high degree of perfection under General 
Appraiser Ketchum, with probable loss of hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to the Treasury. 

Under our present system, merchant appraisers of brains and char¬ 
acter should be selected, who themselves have intimate knowledge of 
values and of commercial usage, they will avoid being misled by the 
interested testimony of witnesses, and will, with a good general ap¬ 
praiser, be enabled to reach practically correct results. 

20. I beg to be excused from answering this question, as I have had 
but little to do with wool appraisements. 

21. This practice has very generally prevailed, and still prevails, 
at this port. It is a most degrading and demoralizing feature of the 
public service. It can, no doubt, be checked by a careful supervision, 
through the agents of the Department, acting under the immediate 
orders of the Secretary. Such officers, if they do their duty, will for a 
time awaken the strongest antagonisms, and they must, therefore, have 
the strong support of the Department. I have the most reliable and 
direct information that inspectors, in speaking of their 1 * good days,” 
have claimed that they have made $50 in “tips” in a single day. 
They seldom get less than $5 from a passenger, and quite often $10. 
Sometimes a card is taken, and if valuable goods have been passed 
with a “convenient” form of examination, giving the wealthy and 
high-toned passenger “no trouble,” the “gentlemanly” insx^ector may 
naturally look for $20 or $25. The honest officer is at a discount, anil 
must be strong indeed to refuse what he comes to believe all accept. 

22. I think not. There may be cases where it would be better to 
have the rates of duty lower for the reason referred to, but I have none 
in my mind at present. 

23. It has, but probably not nearly to the same extent. The influ¬ 
ences at other ports have been very different from those at New York. 
Here they have been combined and powerful. 

24. As before shown, these returns have been made under legal forms. 
It is well known that, under the present law, an undervaluation of 
merchandise, even to the extent of 100 per cent, would not of itself be 
regarded as such evidence of intentional fraud’upon the part of the 
importer as to warrant a district attorney in a criminal prosecution. 
It would be equally difficult to secure an indictment, much more a con¬ 
viction, of an appraising officer for failing to advance goods 5, 10, 15, 
or 20 per cent, or even more, although good reasons might be shown 
why such advances should be made. A shrewd appraising officer will 
always be armed with counterbalancing considerations, which he will 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 385 


claim, with some show of reason, raised a doubt in his mind, and the 
44 benefit of the doubt ,” using the phrase in its proper connection, 
would beyond question be given to the accused. 

I am, very respectfullv, 

IRA AYER, JR., 

Special A pent in Charge. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


No. 17. 

N. W. BINGHAM—Entered the service as Deputy Collector of Customs in Vermont, 
June 10, 1861. Appointed Special Agent April 13, 

Office Special Agent, Treasury Department, 

Boston, Mass., September 21, 1885. 

Sir: In response to Department’s circular letter of the 27th ultimo, 
(marked confidential,) submitting certain interrogatories in relation to 
the tariff and the administration of the law in relation to the collection 
of duties, I have the honor to submit the following answers: 

I regret that the pressure of other public duties has prevented me 
from devoting to the subjects the time and attention that their iim¬ 
portance demands, but I am consoled by the rejection that whatever 
is omitted in these will undoubtedly be supplied in the responses of 
others, to whom I understand the same questions have been submitted. 

Question No. 1.—There is abundant evidence in the records of the 
Department and the several custom-houses that various kinds of im¬ 
ported merchandise have within the last few years been entered and 
passed at rates lower than those prescribed by law. Notably among 
these are aniline dyes, wool, marble monuments, proprietary medi¬ 
cines, and breeding-animals; as to each and all of which the par¬ 
ticulars of the false classification are fully set forth in the reports of 
the special agents, particularly those of Special Agents Tichenor and 
Hinds, and of this office. 

Reference is made as to wool to the reports of Special Agents 
Tichenor and Hinds, found in Ex. Doc. 101, 1st Sess. 48th Cong., and 
reports from this office dated November 12, 1879; February 12, 24, 28, 
1880 ; March 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 1880; and July 10, 1883. 

As to aniline dyes, see reports from this office dated May 15. 1880; 
also reports of Special Agent Tichenor, of various dates. As to 
monuments, see my report dated May 26, 1879; and as to breeding- 
animals, see my report of May 7. 1883. 

The articles above enumerated and the reports relative thereto are 
instanced merely as illustrations of improper classifications. The fact 
(that appears of record) that the efforts of the special agents resulted 
in most cases, wool of the third class excepted, in securing a change 
of rate upon the full presentation of the facts, in connection with the 
law, is evidence of itself of the impropriety of the original assessment, 
especially when it is considered that the importers have in most cases 
acquiesced in the assessment at the higher rate. It is believed that if 
the efforts of the agents had received proper recognition by the ap¬ 
praising officer at Philadelphia, the result as to wool would have been 
equally satisfactory. 

25 A 



386 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Question No. 2. —There is satisfactory evidence that through ignorance, 
carelessness, or fraud, merchandise subject to specific duty has been 
imported at the ports of Boston, New York, and other ports, upon 
which duty has been collected upon less than the true quantity. 

The practice prevailed at this port for many years, and until corrected 
through the efforts of this office, of allowing arbitrarily eight pounds 
on every draft in the weighing of hogsheads of sugar. 

Woollen and worsted goods have also been entered at less than the 
true weight. This is true also of cigars, leaf-tobacco, and many other 
articles subject to duty by the pound. 

It was discovered and reported to the Department by this office on 
the dates of January 19, January 23, and September 27, 1880, respect¬ 
ively, that through collusion between the importers’ weighers and the 
United States weigher false weights had been obtained upon importa¬ 
tions of sugar by two importing houses in this city, by which the Gov¬ 
ernment lost in duty nearly thirty thousand dollars, ($30,000.) The 
improper gauging of molasses at this port has also been discovered. 

On the 21st day of July, 1885, I reported the improper return by the 
United States gauger at this port of the dutiable quantity of domestic 
distilled spirits which had been exported and had been returned to 
the United States, the correction of volume required by law having 
been omitted. The investigation resulted in collecting nearly two 
•thousand dollars ($2,000) in delinquent duties from one importer, and 
the great discrepancy between the foreign gauge and the gauge upon 
importations furnished well-grounded reason to suspect, at least, that a 
much greater loss had occurred through fraud. 

The fraudulent weighing of a cargo of tobacco at this port was dis¬ 
covered by this office in 1871, and the cargo, valued at one hundred 
thousand dollars, ($100,000,) was seized and forfeited. Still greater 
frauds were discovered by this office during the same year in the false 
weighing of and the false damage allowances obtained upon spices, 
which resulted in a verdict for the Government against the importer 
of four hundred thousand dollars, ($400,000.) 

Question No. 3.—At this custom-house tests are at present made by 
actual measurements of portions of goods contained in the examination 
packages and sometimes by more extended tests. Formerly these tests 
were not so carefully made, and the fact was reported to the Depart¬ 
ment and the practice was corrected. 

Question No. 4.—While there is no evidence such as would probably 
enable the Government to maintain an action in court against an entry 
clerk or deputy collector at this port charged with having, during the 
last few years, conspired with others to defraud the revenue by sending 
to the appraisers for examination false or bogus packages, there is 
evidence tending strongly to show that such a practice prevailed at this 
port during the years 1876 and 1877, by which large quantities of silk, 
lastings, laces, and other valuable goods were entered and passed as 
hide-cuttings, &c. 

Extensive frauds of this character were brought to the attention of 
the Department by the Meredith Commission in their report, dated 
January 25, 1878, a copy of which was sent to Congress Januarv 15 
1879. ’ 

These frauds are not as easy of accomplishment as formerly, espe¬ 
cially at Hew York, for the reason that the importer is not now per¬ 
mitted to select the officer who shall order up his goods for exami¬ 
nation. 


REPORT OF TIIE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 387 


Question No. 5.-—I have no evidence of false, or incompetent, or 
inadequate weighing that has occurred very recently, and none as to 
former practices in this respect, except as mentioned in my reply to 
Question 2. 

Question No. 6.—This question can better be answered by the law 
officers of the Government. 

I learn from the United States attorney for this district that there 
are pending in the courts here, suits as follows: 

Three involving the question of duty on wool. 

Fourteen involving the classification for duty of wool and webbing. 

Five involving the classification for duty of manufactures of marble. 

Eight involving the question of duty on aniline dyes. 

Sixty-seven growing out of the act of March 3, 1883, in which the 
question of the dutiable character of boxes, cartons, &c., is involved. 

Three involving the classification of white enamel. 

Three involving the classification of albums bound in silk plush. 

Eight involving the question of the duty on gilling-twine. 

Six involving the question of the duty on iron show-cards. 

Three involving the classification of hosiery, &c., manufactured of 
merino. 

Twelve that cannot be easily classified. 

Of these, the first seventeen are before the Supreme Court on appeal. 
The marble cases are continued under advisement as to the effect of 
recent decisions. The aniline-dye cases and five of the miscellaneous 
cases are before the Supreme Court, and the remainder are ready for 
hearing. 

The oldest suit among the above named was commenced April 13, 
1874. A few only are older than September, 1880. 

The suggestion of erecting a separate tribunal for the trying judi¬ 
cially of actions growing out of impositions of customs duties and of 
internal-revenue taxes impresses me as one worthy of special consid¬ 
eration, and one that might well engage the attention of the Depart¬ 
ment, the courts, and of Congress. 

It is of the utmost importance to importers and manufacturers, as 
well as to the Government, that disputed questions arising under the 
administration of the impost and excise laws should be speedily de¬ 
termined, and more especially does it interest the importers and the 
manufacturers, because such decisions are often necessary in order to 
enable them to make proper settlement with their customers and to 
safely determine as to the continuance of their trade. 

More correct conclusions would be likely to be reached by such 
courts, because they would naturally become more familiar with the 
laws and customs of trade, under which questions presented for their 
determination would arise. 

I can conceive of no practical objection to the system suggested, 
and the benefits which would result from it are self-evident. 

Question No. 7.—The class of articles as to which I believe it to be 
susceptible of proof sufficient to convince a reasonable mind that the 
entire and full amount of duty prescribed by law has not been collected 
at New York are silks, gloves, woollen and worsted dress-goods, hosiery, 
embroidery, linens, aniline dyes, varnishes, chinaware, cutlery, 
ribbon-isinglass, lumber, and a great many other articles; indeed, there 
may safely "be embraced among these all, or nearly all, merchandise 
that is consigned by foreign manufacturers and jobbers to their agents 
and representatives in New York. 


388 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The evidence of undervaluation is in most cases of such a character 
that it ought not to be successfully controverted. The Department is 
already in possession of an overwhelming amount of testimony show¬ 
ing these undervaluations, which has been collected by its agents and 
consular agents abroad, and ibis furthermore well known, and will not 
be contradicted, that as to most of the leading articles of importation 
from Europe, and especially from the continent, American merchants 
desiring to deal honestly are absolutely precluded from the importing 
trade. And this is equally true as to the houses of highest reputation 
and most undoubted reputation. There are practical difficulties which 
will readily occur to the mind in the way of an attempt to establish 
before a reappraising board upon an appraisement, or before the court 
upon a libel for forfeiture, the true and actual wholesale price or 
market value in a foreign country, because of the fact that legitimate 
importing trade has ceased, and there are few, if any, actual transac¬ 
tions of purchase and sale between foreign and American houses by 
which the appraisers or the court may test the integrity of the invoice 
and entry. And again as to reappraisement, it has been the practice, 
to a large extent, for persons to act as merchant appraisers who were 
themselves engaged as agents or consignees in similar transactions. 

Question No. 8.—The failure to collect the proper duties has come 
about partly through the reasons suggested in my last answer, partly 
through ignorance or a want of care and patient attention, and undoubt¬ 
edly in part through the dishonesty of customs officials. Instances of 
dishonesty among the custom-house officials have occasionally come 
to light, but, from the very nature of the case, guilty knowledge or in¬ 
tent on their part is most difficult to discover, especially in case of un¬ 
dervaluation, in which the act of the officer is supposed to be based 
upon his opinion and judgment, and this principle, equally or in a 
higher degree, applies to the question of the integrity of the action of 
the higher class of Treasury officials. I may be permitted to give it 
as my opinion that the heaviest weight of blame for these irregular 
and disastrous proceedings lies at the door of Congress. The passage 
of the act of June 22, 1874, was the signal for the inauguration of a 
general raid upon the public revenue and the honest importing inter¬ 
ests. The readiness with which evil-intentioned men responded to the 
invitation marks one of the saddest and most disgraceful eras in the 
history of the importing t rade of this country. 

Question No. 9.—I have already answered, in substance, that the ap¬ 
praisers have reported to the collector false dutiable values— i. e ., values 
that were less than the actual wholesale price or true market value. 
These incorrect values have, to agreater or less extent, undoubtedly been 
reported ever since the first imposition of ad valorem rates of duty 
based upon foreign values, but especially since the imposition of high 
rates of duty made necessary by the expenses of the war of the rebellion, 
and more especially during the era of false invoices, dating from the 
passage of the act of 1874. This applies to all classes of merchandise, 
but particularly to carpet-wool, and those articles mentioned in my 
answer to the seventh interrogatory. 

Silks are imported chiefly from Lyons, Zurich, and Horgen. Em¬ 
broideries from St. Galle. Woollen and worsted dress-goods from Paris. 
(This includes German goods.) Hosiery from Chemnitz, Germany, and 
Nottingham, England. Linens from St. Galle, Switzerland; Hamburg, 
Germany; Belfast, Ireland; Dunfermline and Dundee, Scotland. AnT- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 389 


line dyes from Berlin and Hamburg, Germany; Lyons and Paris, 
France; Basle, Switzerland; and London and Liverpool, England. 
Varnishes from London, England. Chinaware from Dresden, Sonne- 
berg, Frankfort, Coburg, Wallendorf, Tetton, Suhl, Eichwald, Schleu- 
singen, Rudolstadt, and Sittendorf. Cutlery from Sheffield, England, 
and Solingen, Germany. Lumber from Canada. Kid gloves from Berlin, 
Brussels, Grenable, Aix-la-Chapelle, and Prague, Paris. Ribbon-isin- 
glass from Hamburg. Carpet-wool from Rosario, Cordova, Rio Grande, 
and Valparaiso, South America; Smyrna and Alexandretta, Turkey; 
Marseilles, France; Odessa and Moscow, Russia; London and Liver¬ 
pool, England; and Glasgow, Scotland. 

As I have already replied, these goods, except carpet-wool, have 
recently been shipped principally by the manufacturers or foreign job¬ 
bing-houses. The evil has principally been confined to New York, for 
the reasons heretofore stated, but to some extent it exists at the smaller 
ports. 

I have already submitted, in a general way, an outline of the cor¬ 
roborative proof of the charge of undervaluation made by special 
agents of the Treasury and consular officers—the fact that merchants 
of large experience, high reputation, and unquestioned credit hereto¬ 
fore loyally engaged in the importing trade have, by reason of these 
undervaluations, been forced to purchase their goods in this country, 
and to abandon the importing trade. Aside from this general fact is 
the evidence that in most cases has accompanied the reports of the 
special agents and consuls as to the cost of production, actual sales, 
and prices demanded or advertised abroad. 

Question No. 10.—There is now and has recently been considerable 
confusion, doubt, or conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s department 
respecting elements upon which to base their reports of values, and it 
arises in part from what I deem to be a misapprehension of-their duties, 
in this: while the law defines their duties in distinct terms to be to 
ascertain and report the wholesale price or true market value of im¬ 
ported merchandise, they have to some extent, at least, been led to 
believe that their duty was to report the dutiable value, which may 
or may not be in excess of the market value. The law provides that 
duty shall in no case be assessed upon a sum less than the invoice or 
entered value, and it also provides that goods obtained by purchase 
shall be invoiced at the actual price paid. 

It has come to be a pretty general practice with the appraisers to 
return invoice values correct, when for any reason they are above the 
market value, as in case of small purchases at exorbitant prices, and, 
by a parity of reasoning, some appraisers have come to consider an 
actual sale price, although for any reason it is less than the usual whole¬ 
sale price or true market value, to be the proper standard for their 
appraisement, while others have regarded it only as an element to be 
considered in ascertaining values. 

With some appraisers proof of actual sales at a higher than invoice 
price is considered necessary in order to warrant an advance, not¬ 
withstanding the fact that the goods have been manufactured and sold 
for years at a cost of manufacture inconsistent with the invoice value. 

Differences of opinion have also arisen to a very large extent since 
the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, as to whether the cost of the 
cartons and embalage, which constitute a part of the purchase price, 
shall be inclnded in the price which they return. The intent of that 
act should be more clearly defined by Congress. 


390 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Question No. 11.—I think it safe to estimate the average undervalu¬ 
ation of all merchandise subject to ad valorem rates of duty to be 20 
per cent. On those enumerated in answer to Question 7, I believe it 
to be above rather than below 25 per cent. 

Question No. 12.—The examiner (who is ordinarily the only officer 
in the appraiser’s department who sees the goods) is, as a rule, pri¬ 
marily and chiefly responsible for a false return or value. 

At the large ports I doubt if the invoices and the examiners’ reports 
are, as a rule, very carefully scrutinized, the report upon the invoice 
made by the appraiser being based wholly upon the return of the ex¬ 
aminer, and a thorough scrutiny and personal examination only occurs 
in cases especially brought to the appraiser’s attention. 

The appraiser is supposed to be provided with special and complete 
information, so far as is practical, of foreign market values, and if he 
fails to impart this information to his assistants and to the examiner, 
then he is so far primarily and chiefly responsible. 

The salaries of examiners at the principal ports range from $1,400 
to $2,500 per annum. The salary of appraisers at the port of Boston 
is $3,000. 

As a matter of fact, the appraisers at the principal ports do little 
more than to sign the reports in a perfunctory manner, to construe the 
law and department decisions as to classifications in advising as to them, 
and to make special examinations in cases as to which their attention 
is particularly directed. 

Question No. 13.—I have no such evidence. 

Question No. 14.—As to this interrogatory, I can add nothing to what 
I have already written. 

Question No. 15.—As to this interrogatory, I think it may safely be 
said that, while the frailties of human nature exist and the temptations 
to sin continue, until the means of detecting and securing the punish¬ 
ment of fraud abolished by the act of 1874 are restored, the success of 
false valuations will continue in the future as in the past, unless the 
Department, by its own action in the way of encouragement and sup¬ 
port, shall more thoroughly than heretofore sustain its officers in their 
endeavors to effect a faithful execution of the law. 

Question No. 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty, 
as far as practical, would, in my judgment, greatly simplify the ascer¬ 
tainment of duty and the detection of fraud, but such a change should 
be accompanied by a thorough reorganization of the force of officers 
employed, so that officers of higher grade, and therefore commanding 
higher salaries, would be employed iu the ascertainment of quantity, 
which would then be the sole basis upon which duty would be assessed. 

I apprehend no practical difficulty in applying specific rates of duty 
to a large portion of textile fabrics, although it might, and probably 
would, be found necessary, as to some of the finer and more expensive 
fabrics, to add to the specific rate a slight ad valorem rate for the pur¬ 
pose of equalization. 

For illustration: a duty based upon the weight of plain piece-silks 
would, as a general rule, be not only practicable, but it would result 
in special benefit to the consumer, because it would prevent the importa¬ 
tion of weighted and adulterated silks, that are of little value to the 
purchaser, and give to them instead something more desirable and 
valuable. But as to figured and fancy silks, the principal cost of which 
consists of labor and design, a slight ad valorem rate, but not so great as 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


301 


to furnish a temptation to undervalue, might be added. Such a recom¬ 
mendation was made by the Meredith Commission, of which I was a 
member, and which was composed of officers of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment and prominent importing merchants in the cities of Kew York, 
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Chicago, and at the 
invitation of the Secretary of the Treasury we presented our views in 
person to the Committee of Ways and Means of Congress. 

Question No. 17.—I have already stated that, in my judgment, the re¬ 
peal of the moiety law has resulted in largely increasing the under¬ 
valuations in invoices and entries, and has resulted, naturally, in the 
increase of incorrect reports by the appraisers, for the reason that the 
invoice, in the absence of contradictory evidence, would be taken as con¬ 
clusive evidence of value. But the evils resulting from the repeal of the 
moiety law extend beyond this; they are not alone found in the encour¬ 
agement given to illicit transactions, whereby the appraising officers are 
deceived, but the encouragement to give information is withdrawn, 
except in matters of comparatively small importance, and with those 
who are willing to be published in the courts, and annually to Con¬ 
gress, as informers, and the officers are deprived of the incentive to 
especial vigilance and the means of obtaining testimony from the books 
and papers of the importers. And, furthermore, the law is so cun¬ 
ningly devised as to make it almost impossible in the plainest case of 
fraud to secure a verdict for the Government, because of that unpre¬ 
cedented requirement that the jury shall return as a separate and dis¬ 
tinct proposition the question of intent. 

Question No. 18.—It would not be practicable in the large American 
consular districts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for the consuls 
or their agents, however numerous and alert, to personally examine all 
articles to be shipped from thence to the American ports, and thereby 
to verify the correctness of the invoice values, but as to a large majority 
of importations, and especially as to those of standard quality and value, 
it could be done. 

I think it not unlikely that foreign governments would make com¬ 
plaint to this, should vexatious delays occur in examining values and 
certifying invoices; but if the consular force was sufficiently numerous 
and alert, and exercised proper discretion and judgment by confining 
their inquiries to the principal articles of production and sale, or to 
those particularly brought to their attention, no such delays would 
occur. 

The consul’s fee for certifying an invoice is $2.50, and in the United 
Kingdom, I understand, there is collected an additional fee of 50 cents 
for administering the oath. 

Question No. 19.—As already stated, the appraising officers are only 
authorized by law to find the wholesale price or true market value of 
imported merchandise. 

The dutiable value, where goods are obtained by purchase, may be 
in excess of the value which the appraising officers are by law required 
to find. 

To be sure, under section 2930, Revised Statutes, which was compiled 
from the acts of August 30, 1842, and March 3, 1851, it is provided that 
the decision of the collector, when the reappraisement board shall dis¬ 
agree as to value, shall be final, and be deemed to be the true value, 
and that duties shall be levied thereon accordingly. But this section 
should be construed in connection with sections 2838 and 2854, Revised 


192 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Statutes, which provide that merchandise subject to ad valorem duty 
shall be invoiced at the actual cost or price paid, and with section 2900, 
Revised Statutes, which provides that duty shall not be assessed upon 
an amount less than the invoice value. 

It would seem that the only decision of the collector as to value that 
is by law made final and conclusive is that provided for in section 2930, 
Revised Statutes, and that provided for in section 2932. In the latter 
the exactions of duty by the collector are only made conclusive in the 
absence of protest and appeal, and in such cases are only conclusive 
against the persons interested in such exactions, which does not include 
the Government, since it cannot be said to be a person. 

The action of the collector, which is made final under section 2930, 
is only that wherein he decides between the members of the reappraise¬ 
ment board, and can only embrace the subject-matter which, by law, 
that board may consider, namely, the wholesale price or true market 
value of the merchandise in the principal markets of the country 
whence shipped at the date of shipment to this country. 

I doubt whether it would be safe or useful to the revenue, or would 
work any greater measure of practical justice to importers were the 
executive or judicial powers given greater jurisdiction to interfere 
with the ascertainment of dutiable value. 

The question of market value, or of actual cost, (which, considered 
together, form the dutiable value,) is one of fact, and one that would 
not naturally call for the intervention of the executive or the courts. 
And. again, if the door were open to such appeal, there would be dan¬ 
ger of interminable delays in the settlement of duties, and the multi¬ 
plication of costs and other vexations which the importing interests 
desire above all things to avoid. 

It might possibly be well to provide that at ports where there are 
naval officers the naval officer, instead of the collector, should decide 
as to market values between disagreeing appraising officers. 

There is some degree of inconsistency in the arrangement by which 
the collector is to decide between the merchant appointed by himself 
and the general appraiser, but I doubt the existence of any such evils 
or hardships as to require a modification of the present system. 

Question No. 20.—The necessity for raising increased revenue, which 
was forced upon the country by the inauguration of the late civil war, 
was undoubtedly seized upon by the wool-growing interests of this 
country as furnishing an opportunity to secure greater protection to 
that particular industry, and Congress, by the act of March 2, 1861, 
placed upon the duty-list low-grade wools which were then free, and, 
to a very considerable extent, increased the duty upon the higher 
grades. The interests of those engaged in the production of Merino 
and other, high-grade wools seem to have more particularly engaged 
the attention of Congress. 

On January 30, 1864, the low-duty limit was reduced from 18 to 12 
cents per pound, and the rate advanced upon wool costing 12 cents or 
less per pound from 5 per cent, ad valorem to 3 cents per pound, which 
was an advance equivalent to from 20 per cent, to 45 per cent. On 
higher-priced wool the rate was also advanced, but to a less propor¬ 
tionate extent. It seems that the wool-growing interests of the coun¬ 
try were not satisfied with the protection afforded by this act, and that 
they complained, among other things, that Mestiza or Merino wool, 
which had been intended to be excluded from the low rate, had actually 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


393 


come in at the lowest classification, and, as they claimed, in ruinous 
com etition with the fine-wool-growing interests of this country. 

A conference was had between the National Wool-Growers’ Associa¬ 
tion and the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, which re¬ 
sulted in formulating the tariff of 1867, which was mutually agreed 
upon substantially as passed by Congress. In this act wool was divided 
into three general classes, viz., class 1, clothing-wool.; class 2, combing 
wool; class 3, carpet and other similar wools. But the distinguishing 
features of the wools of the various classes were not so well described 
by the title as by the text. Particular mention was made in each class 
of the blood, and, as to wools of Merino blood, whether immediate or 
remote, they were classed as clothing-wool. 

At the date of the passage of that act no machinery had been invented 
by which Merino wools or other wools of short staple could be success¬ 
fully combed. 

Improvements have since been made which enable manufacturers to 
comb wools of comparatively short staple. 

By crossing the long-wool sheep of New Zealand, Australia, and 
other countries with fine Merino bucks, a very large amount of fine 
combing wool is grown abroad. 

The question of blood, immediate or remote, is one, in many instances, 
most difficult for the appraising officer to determine, and it has been 
found necessary for the Department to aid them by furnishing type- 
samples of the various kinds of imported wools mentioned in the tariff, 
which samples have been selected from time to time by commissions 
appointed by the Department for that purpose, thus to a great extent 
placing the determination of the duty under the tariff practically in 
the hands of other than officers who are by law charged with this duty. 

One of the most unfortunate features of the act of 1867 is that the 
dividing line between the higher and lower rate of duty in wools in 
class 3 is placed so very near the price at which those wools have for 
years been held for sale* in foreign countries, thus affording a special 
inducement to undervalue, or to reduce the apparent value upon the 
invoice by the substitution of false and fictitious charges at the last 
port of shipment. 

The act of June 6, 1872, simply reduces the duty 10 per cent., with¬ 
out making further changes. This act was repealed in March, 1875. 

The act of March 3, 1883, abolished ad valorem duties, reduced the 
duties on carpet-wools from 3 cents and 6 cents to 2-i cents and 5 cents 
per pound, respectively, and lowered the dividing line between wools 
of the first class paying lower and those paying higher duty from 32 
cents to 30 cents value, but the classification by race or blood remains 
the same as in the tariff of 1864. 

Question No. 21.—It is not believed that at any of the larger Atlantic 
ports, except New York, the practice prevails to any extent among 
inspectors of baggage or other officers of the customs of accepting 
money or other valuable things from passengers arriving from abroad 
as a consideration for malfeasance or misfeasance on their part, or for 
any other purpose. 

The only money believed to be received by officers upon the dock is 
that which is collected by the proper officers as duties upon goods sub¬ 
ject to duty contained in the passengers’ baggage. 

It is, anil has been for many years, an open secret that such repre¬ 
hensible and illegal practices have prevailed at the port of New York. 


394 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


This was fully commented upon by the Jay Commission, in 1877, and 
was specially brought to the attention of Congress by the Secretary of 
the Treasury in 1878. 

The only remedy that occurs to me would be by the appointment of 
honest and trustworthy persons as inspectors, by a watchful and con¬ 
stant supervision, and by subjecting the offenders in every instance to 
the severest penalties of the law. 

It is an element of weakness in the law that in giving and accepting 
valuable considerations for official services the offence is the same, so 
that the passenger cannot testify against the officer without criminat¬ 
ing himself. 

Question No. 22.—Of course, the higher the rate of duty the greater 
is the temptation to evade it. The duty on bay-oil at one time was 
$17.50 a pound, and while this law existed none was legitimately im¬ 
ported. The high rate of duty formerly imposed upon ottar of roses 
and many varieties of essential oils, and upon quinine and morphine, 
when taken in connection with their value and the ease with which 
they can be handled and concealed, resulted in extensive smugglingof 
those articles. 

It is also true of diamonds that, although the rate is but 10 per cent., 
large quantities are smuggled. Sugar is one of the largest articles of 
importation, and its rate of duty is among the highest, and yet substan¬ 
tially none is smuggled because of its bulk. Articles of standard value 
are not so often undervalued as are those whose value depends upon 
the fancy of the hour. As to the latter, whatever the rate of duty pro¬ 
vided, unless it were the minimum, we might fairly expect undervalu¬ 
ation, because of the fact, well known to the importer, that the in¬ 
tegrity of his invoice ordinarily could not successfully be challenged. 

Question No. 23.—What has been true of the failure to enforce the 
revenue law at New York has, to some extent, been also true at the 
other large American ports, but in a far less degree. 

When the importing trade was driven from its legitimate channels 
by the pernicious consignment system, it naturally drifted to New York, 
the great business centre of the East; and, as the successful consumma¬ 
tion of one system of frauds is likely to invite the inauguration of 
others and result in evil and powerful combinations, it follows as a 
natural result that, as to fraudulent importations, that great port has 
become distinguished above all others. 

Question No. 24.—No instance has come under my observation in 
which an appraising officer has made a false or fraudulent report to 
the collector of dutiable values and has not been complained of and 
punished. 

As I have before stated, since the action of the appraising officer is, 
or is presumed to be, in every instance based upon his opinion and 
judgment, it would be most difficult to establish ordinarily any guilty 
knowledge or intent on his part, however erroneous his expressed 
opinion might be. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

N. W. BINGHAM, 

Special Agent . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. (7, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 395 


No. 18. 


' Additional Inquiry to Special Agent Bingham. 


Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D. G., October 2, 1885. 

Sir : Your communication of the 21st ultimo, giving a very clear 
exhibition of the result of your inquiries into the condition of the cus¬ 
toms service during the last few years, has been received. You are 
directed to prepare immediately, and transmit to me, an additional 
statement showing on what articles, and at which ports, there is at the 
present time, in your opinion, a failure to levy and collect the full 
rate and amount of duty levied by the existing law, together with the 
names of the officers who are, in your opinion, now at fault. 

Respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING. 


N. W. Bingham, Esq., 

Special Agent, Boston, Mass. 


No. 19. 


Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Boston, Mass., October 10, 1885. 

Sir : In response to your communication of the 2d instant, directing 
me to prepare and present an additional statement showing on what 
articles and at which ports there is at the present time in my opinion, 
a failure to levy and collect the full rate and amount of duty, together 
with the names of the officers who are, in my opinion, now at fault, I 
have the honor to report as follows: 

I assume that it is only expected that I shall mention some of the 
leading and most important articles upon which the full amount of duty 
is not collected, confining the list to articles as to which the evils com¬ 
plained of are in a measure systematic at certain ports, in order that 
the attention of the Department may be directed to the ports where 
remedial action is most required. 

The failure to collect the proper duties arises in part from under¬ 
valuations, in part from improper classifications, in part from incorrect 
.entry and returns of quantity, in part from improper damage allow¬ 
ances, and in part from smuggling. 

I am not prepared to assert that the practice at present exists, as in 
former years, of passing merchandise through the custom-house upon 
invoices containing false descriptions and by means of dummy packages. 

The principal undervaluations, as I believe, occur at present upon 
articles that are consigned by foreign manufacturers or jobbing houses 
to their agents or representatives in this country. As to these, I think 
it may safely be said that undervaluation is the rule rather than the 

( ^Occasional undervaluations of merchandise purchased abroad and 
imported by American merchants are discovered. Indeed, it is a mat¬ 
ter of daily occurrence at the larger ports for appraisers to report ad¬ 
vances in value, but the amount involved is generally inconsiderable 



306 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and the undervaluation is not believed to be accompanied with fraud¬ 
ulent intent. I do not call to mind any particular class of merchandise 
so imported that is systematically undervalued upon entry except 
horses. 

Among the most important importations under the consignment sys¬ 
tem are those of silks and silk goods, kid gloves, woollen and worsted 
goods, embroideries, china and glass ware, and cutlery. The system, 
has, however, absorbed nearly all leading articles subject to ad valorem 
rates of duty that are imported from the continent of Europe, and more 
especially from Germany. These importations are almost wholly made 
at the port of New York. 

The classes of merchandise distinguished for being improperly classi¬ 
fied upon entry are less numerous than those undervalued. Among 
these are sugar, wool, and animals imported from Canada ostensibly 
for breeding purposes. 

The rate of duty imposed by law upon sugar is among the highest, 
and the revenue derived from importations of that article far exceeds 
that collected upon any other, reaching an average of over forty mill¬ 
ions annually. The rate upon sugar testing over 75 degrees by the 
polariscope is increased of a cent per pound for every additional 
degree shown by such test. 

I am informed that an examination of the returns of tests made at 
New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, of the same kind and quality of 
sugar, demonstrates that the returned tests at Boston range consider¬ 
ably higher than those at New York or Philadelphia. 

The sugar examiner at this port estimates the average excess of the 
Boston tests over those at New York to be one (1) degree, and the av¬ 
erage excess over those at Philadelphia to be two (2) degrees. This 
discrepancy may result from imperfections in the instrument, from im¬ 
proper sampling, or from carelessness in testing, and possibly may be 
attributed to design. 

The importance of this matter can only be realized by considering 
the magnitude of the importations. During the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1884, the quantity of sugar imported into the United States 
was 2,437,570,913 pounds, of which 2,417,401,137 pounds were returned 
as not above No. 13, 1). S., and testing above 75 degrees. An error of 
one degree upon this quantity would make a difference in duties for 
or against the Government of $966,960. 

During the same period there was imported at the ports of New York 
and Philadelphia, in all, 2,020,018,754 pounds of sugar, of which about 
two million pounds only was above No. 13, D. S. 

The Department is in possession of abundant evidence tending to 
show that carpet-wool in large quantities has been passed at Phila¬ 
delphia at less than the proper rate. 

Owing to the general depression in business in Europe as well as in 
this country, the foreign market value of carpet-wool is just now so 
low as to bring it honestly within the low-duty limit, but on the revival 
of business the higher prices are so certain to be attained again that I 
consider it to be a subject worthy of present attention. 

Under the tariff provisions relating to the importation of animals 
specially for breeding purposes, large numbers have been imported 
upon the northern and northeastern frontiers and passed through the 
custom-house free of duty that were, in point of fact, imported for other 
purposes, and not for breeding. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 397 

I believe that the greatest losses arising from incorrect returns of 
weights ocour upon importations of sugar at the port of New York. 
The returned weight of brown sugar entered at that port during the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 18S3, was nearly one and a half million 
pounds, about three-quarters of the entire importation. Tests recently 
instituted will, I believe, establish the truth of the conjecture and con¬ 
vince the Department of the importance of instituting some vigorous 
and determined measures to correct the evil. 

The liberal weighing of sugar at New York has been a matter of 
continuous and earnest complaint from importers at other ports for 
several years. 

My attention has just been called to the circumstances of a re weighing 
of ninety-three hogsheads of sugar, March 28, 1883, by the deputy 
surveyor at this port, at the Boston sugar-refinery. The sugar was 
imported at New York, and the custom-house weights appeared upon 
the packages. The reweighing was not officially done, but was simply 
to test the foundation of complaints as to discrepancies between the 
true and the returned weights at New York. Although the sugar in 
this instance had remained some time subject to drying since the New 
York weights were taken, the true weights were found to average about 
ten pounds per hogshead in excess of The New York weights. 

The sugar examiner, Mr. Keyes, informs me that a short time since 
he had occasion to observe a number of hogsheads of sugar that were 
imported at New York and purchased by a refiner in this city, which 
hogsheads were in process of being reweighed, and he noticed" that the 
custom house weights which were marked upon the hogsheads were 
from fifteen to twenty pounds less than the true weight. 

The damage allowance system is one of the most fruitful sources of 
fraud in all the customs service, and one which Congress should be 
urged to abolish. 

Under this system frauds are especially invited, easy of accomplish¬ 
ment, and comparatively free from detection. 

At the port of New York there is a set of enterprising men, styled 
damage brokers, who, for a consideration, undertake to obtain liberal 
damage allowances upon any and all importations of merchandise lia¬ 
ble to sustain damage upon the voyage of importation, and importers 
are often importuned by them to permit them to make claims for 
damages upon merchandise as to which the owner is satisfied that no 
damage has been sustained. 

One of the largest importers of fruits and nuts in this city recently 
informed me that upon an importation of walnuts, part of which came 
into the port of New York and a part into Boston, and all of which 
were perfectly sound and bright when landed, his broker, without his 
knowledge, obtained for him, upon the New York importation, an al¬ 
lowance of about $200 in duty, and the broker, on being subsequently 
asked why he claimed damage on goods that were not injured, replied 
that he was obliged to do it because of heavy damage allowances that 
had been claimed and allowed upon contemporaneous importations. 

I believe that at this port there is rrn ground for complaint on the 
part of the Government or honest imp<S*ters in this regard. 

Smuggling is to a greater or less extent carried on throughout our 
whole coast and frontier. There is, however, less temptation than 
heretofore to engage in this nefarious traffic upon the northern frontier, 
because of the high rates of duty imposed upon merchandise by the 
Provincial Government. 


398 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


I am unable to give the names of officers who are responsible for the 
failure to levy and collect full duty. 

I have from time to time, as the malfeasance or misfeasance of cus¬ 
toms officers has been discovered, reported the facts to the Department, 
with the names of the officers implicated, as I was in duty bound to do. 

In my former communication I submitted that, as to officers whose 
official reports are supposed to be the result of their opinion and judg¬ 
ment, it was exceedingly difficult to establish any wrong purpose or 
intent upon their part. This especially applies to officers in the ap¬ 
praiser’s department charged with the finding of values and the ascer¬ 
tainment of damage and with recommendations as to classifications. 
It also applies to the higher grade of Treasury officials who construe 
the law for the guidance of customs officers. 

A feeling has prevailed among many of the more intelligent and 
conscientious officers for several years, and until recent changes were 
made in the customs bureau of the Treasury Department, that the law 
was frequently construed either in the interest of particular persons for 
unworthy purposes, or to wait upon a popular clamor coming chiefly 
from those whose interest it was to defeat the plain purposes of the law, 
and that, to a certain extent at least, erroneous decisions had, for the 
sake of consistency, been adhered to by which the revenue suffered 
great loss, and the rights of honest importers were correspondingly 
invaded. 

Information was obtained by this office in 1879 that, upon import 0 
tions of sugar at this port, through collusion between the Governme t 
weigher and the importers’ weigher, false returns of weights were made, 
ranging from ten to five hundred pounds per hogshead, by which the 
Government lost in duty a sum reaching nearly thirty thousand dollars. 

The quantity of sugar upon which duty was not paid as above stated 
was clearly shown by documentary evidence, and was in fact admitted 
by the importers as to some of the cargoes. 

The color, Dutch standard, of the contents of each hogshead was and 
is a matter of record in the custom-house, having been obtained in the 
manner prescribed by law; and yet, with all the data necessary for a set¬ 
tlement by any reasonable rule in transactions between individuals in 
the possession of the Government, it was decided (see Synopsis, 4588) 
that the duties so falsely withheld could not be collected because of the 
wrong-doing of the importers’ agent, through which it had come that 
the statute steps in ascertaining quantity could not be taken. 

In this connection, I venture to refer to my report upon this subject, 
dated September 22, 1880. 

The principles laid down in the decision above referred to are of fre¬ 
quent application, and, if unsound, operate to deprive the Government 
of important legal remedies in the assessment and collection of delin¬ 
quent duties. 

Two instances may be cited—one reported by this office on the 5th 
ultimo, and one referred to in my report of the 6th instant. 

An importation of worsted yarn from Bradford, England, was made 
at this port in December, 1883~upon which the appraiser mnde an ad¬ 
vance in value, and the case went to the appellate board on appeal. 

It was clearly proven upon reappraisement that the price at which 
the yarn was imported was below its market value in England, and was 
a concession made to meet and defeat the tariff. The general and mer¬ 
chant appraisers disagreed, and the matter went to "the collector for 
final determination. ; 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


399 


In answer- to inquiries from the collector, the Department laid down 
the rule that the special price made for the purpose above suggested 
was to be considered, within the meaning of the law, to be the whole¬ 
sale price or true market value in the foreign market, notwithstanding 
the fact that the Supreme Court, in the Cliquot’s Champagne case (3 
Wallace, U. S. Rep., 125) construed the term “market value,” as em¬ 
ployed in the law, to mean the price at which the goods were freely 
offered for sale to all the world. 

I enclose a copy of my report upon that case, dated April 19, 1884. 

It will be observed that the principle promulgated in the decision 
last referred to applies equally to all importations and opens the way 
for the wealthy and long-established factories and business houses of 
the old world to defeat the purposes of our legislation and to crush out 
our young competing industries. 

Of vastly less importance, but forcibly illustrating the idea that I 
would present, are the decisions relating io the entry of animals im¬ 
ported from Canada upon the pretense that they are to be especially 
used for breeding purposes. 

A perusal of these decisions, and the various reports from this office 
upon the same subject, will show with what difficulty a modification of 
the first decision that opened the door to free entry to everything breed- 
able was secured, and will also show that while the law (for reasons too 
apparent to discuss) restricts the free entry of animals for breeding 
purposes to those imported from beyond the sea, the Department de¬ 
cided, in effect, that Canada is a country beyond the sea. 

As to the return of false weights and of damage allowances upon 
goods that are evidently sound and bright, it may properly be charged 
against the officer that he has acted from corrupt motives and with 
guilty intent, or that at least he is guilty of criminal negligence in the 
discharge of his duty. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

N. W. BINGHAM, 

Special Agent. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 
Secretary of the Treasury. 


[Enclosure.] 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Boston , Mass., April 19, 1884. 

Sir : Upon a disagreement between the general and merchant apprais¬ 
ers in the matter of reappraisement of certain wools and yarns, im¬ 
ported at this port from Bradford, England, by the Manchester Mills, 
the question coming before the collector for his decision, I am informed 
that he asked instructions from the Department as to certain legal ques¬ 
tions involved, and has transmitted, for the better information of the De¬ 
partment, the documentary evidence in the case and the stenographer’s 
report of the hearing. To these papers I would respectfully invite 
careful attention, for the reason that I am under the impression that they 
may aid materially in disclosing the real point at issue. 

I had expected to have opportunity to present a summary of the evi¬ 
dence, with such suggestions as were deemed pertinent and important, 
but am prevented from doing so from the fact that through inadvertency 
the papers were transmitted to the Department without giving me a 
chance to review them, as the collector promised and intended. I think, 


400 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


however, that I can from memory give substant ially the substance of 
the evidence in the case without going into details. 

The evidence before the appellate board conclusively established two 
facts— 

First. That the prices at which the yarns in question were sold at 
wholesale, at the date of the invoices, in Bradford, for delivery there, 
or on the continent, without restrictions, were higher than those ex¬ 
pressed in the invoices, and in most cases were more than 80 cents per 
pound, which is one of the dividing-lines between a higher and lower 
rate of duty. (The invoice prices are less than 80 cents per pound.) 

Second. That the invoice prices correctly represent the prices at 
which the goods in question were sold, (in this instance,) and are the 
result of a special concession made to meet the tariff barrier of the 
United States. 

A fair, if not the unavoidable, inference from all the testimony is, that 
the sales in question were not made in the ordinary course of trade in 
this description of merchandise in Bradford. 

I understand that Mr. Iiaserich, of the firm of Stoddard & Lovering, 
having a house in England as well as in this country, states in writing 
to the collector that he could purchase the yarns in question, at the 
date of the invoices, at the invoice prices or less, for export to any 
country, but whether this is merely a matter of conjecture or not I am 
not informed, as no opportunity was given the general appraiser or 
myself to examine him upon that point. 

It is worthy of note that the opinion expressed by Mr. Haserich is 
in direct conflict with all the testimony bearing upon that point con¬ 
tained in the report of Special Agent Tichenor. 

It should also be borne in mind that Mr. Haserich occupies substan¬ 
tially the position of a co-defendant in this matter, for the reason that 
his house has been largely engaged in similar importations. 

This statement of Mr. Haserich would not be important but for the fact 
that it is claimed that under instructions contained in Synopsis, 3238, 
in relation to the dutiable value of certain books, the actual price paid 
for merchandise, or for which merchandise is sold for export, constitutes 
the dutiable value, although such price is lower than the price at which 
the goods are sold for consumption in the country from whence exported. 

I do not think that the Department intended to give to said decision 
such broad scope of application, but, on the contrary, I believe it to have 
been the purpose simply to lay down a rule for the appraisement of 
books, a kind of merchandise which from the peculiarities of the trade 
therein it is especially difficult to appraise; but, whether this view is 
correct or not, it certainly cannot be that Congress intended to provide 
a method by which foreign producers could successfully defeat the 
purposes of legislation, as would be the case were it provided by law 
that special dutiable values, differing from and less than the ordinary 
market values, might be made through special concessions in order to 
meet and defeat the restrictive or discriminating provisions contained 
in our tariff laws; and in this connection I beg to suggest that such 
special transactions cannot be said to be “in the ordinary course of 
trade,” any more than exceptions to well-defined rules can be held to 
constitute the rules themselves. 

The court, in the Cliquot’s Champagne case, (3 Wall., U. S. Rep. 
125,) clearly defines the meaning of “market value” of goods as em¬ 
ployed in the tariff, declaring it to be “the price at which they are 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 401 


freely offered in the market to all the world;” in other words, “such 
prices as dealers in the goods are willing to receive, and purchasers are 
made to pay ,’’ not with special concessions or under special restrictions, 
but, on the contrary, when the “goods are bought and sold in the ordi¬ 
nary course of trade.” 

By adopting this principle in the appraisement of dutiable merchan¬ 
dise, the appraising officer would be forced to disregard sales of mer¬ 
chandise at special prices for a limited and circumscribed market at 
prices less than those at which it is freely offered, bought, and sold 
“to all the world” 

In a letter to the collector at Hew York, dated June 12, 1869, (Synop¬ 
sis, 406,) the Secretary declared that “the dutiable value of goods im¬ 
ported into the United States is the value at which such goods enter 
into consumption in the country of export.” 

It is true that the Department has held that goods in bond, having 
a known market value in that condition, as distinguished from their 
value duty or tax paid, may, when purchased in bond, be appraised 
for duty at the price paid, or rather at the value in bond; but whether 
or not this doctrine shall prevail when reconsidered by the present 
authorities it does not affect the case in question, for the reason that 
in the case of goods in bond it is their now tax-paid condition that is 
taken into account in determining their value, while in the case in 
question the importer only claims to sustain his invoice values by the 
special conditions of the purchase and sale. 

In one case it is the condition of the goods that affects their value; in 
the other it is claimed to reduce the value on account of the condition 
of the sale. 

It has been held that upon the importation of goods upon which a 
drawback was allowed by the country from whence exported to this, 
that no allowance should be made for such drawback in determining 
dutiable value. 

With the exception of a remote inference that may possibly be drawn 
from the language contained in Synopsis, 3238, the decisions of the De¬ 
partment are all in harmony with the doctrine of the court above cited ; 
and as to Synopsis, 3238, I would respectfully submit that it should be 
interpreted in connection with that which it reaffirms, viz., Synopsis, 
3196, in which latter decision it was declared that when goods subject 
to a royalty, when sold for consumption in the country of production 
are imported into this country, no less value than the sum realized upon 
such sales for consumption can be accepted as a basis for assessment of 
duty. 

The purpose of the tariff as relates to the merchandise in question is 
evidently twofold, viz., the collection of revenue and the protection of 
domestic industries. 

Considering this, the impropriety of giving to the foreign producers 
the privilege of defeating the manifest purpose of Congress by making 
special concessions in price, whereby they may be enabled to introduce 
into this country at a lower duty goods which, by reason of their gen¬ 
eral value abroad, it is declared shall pay a higher duty, is too apparent 
to discuss. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

N. W. BINGHAM, 

Special Agent. 

Hon. Charles J. Bdlger, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 

26 A 


402 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 20. 

C. H. LAPP—Appointed Special Agent May 1, 1885. 

Office Special Agent Treasury Department, 

New York, October 5, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to Department circular of August 27, containing 
twenty-four inquiries, and also to the circular of September 30, asking 
for a reply to same, I respectfully beg leave to say that a careful con¬ 
sideration of the subjects covered by said inquiries convinces me that 
my meagre knowledge of customs laws and regulations, wholly acquired 
during the five months I have been in the service, will not permit of 
my answering the questions in a manner at all satisfactory to the 
Department, or so as to in any way benefit the object sought to be 
attained. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

0. H. LAPP, 

Special Agent . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. O. 


No. 21. 

JAMES D. POWER—Entered the Department as a first-class clerk October 2, 1869. 

Was promoted through all the different grades. Appointed on the “ Fraud Roll,’* 

and assigned to duty at San Francisco September 22, 1882 ; Inspector of Customs, 

October 5, 1883. Appointed Special Agent February 28, 1885. 

Office of Special Agent, 

U. S. Public Stores, 402 Washington Street, 

New York City, October 2, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to Department’s circular (confidential) of August 27, 
1885, I have the honor to submit the following: 

Query 1.—Rates of duty are determined by the appraising officers by 
the exercise of their knowledge of the commodities under appraisement, 
the application thereto of the tariff law, and the rulings of the Treasury 
Department. In the performance of their duties, questions of doubt as 
to classification are of common occurrence, and mistakes are often made 
even by the most experienced officers. 

Doubtful decisions affecting the merchants’ interests are promptly 
questioned, appealed from to the Treasury Department, and finally to 
the United States courts for decision. The frequency of those appeals 
indicates errors of judgment on appraisement, and warrants the inference 
that mistakes adverse to the revenue must also be not uncommon. Such 
mistakes, when made, and appraisement having been concluded, are not 
likely to be heard of again, much less discovered. 

Query 2.—I am unable to answer. 

Query 3.—Tests of the correctness of invoiced measurements are rarely 
made, and then only in cases where there is reason to suspect the 
honesty of the importation or the character of the importer. In such 
instances the examiner verifies the measurement by a count of the metre 
or yard folds, as the merchandise is put up, or, as in the case of goods 
rolled on a board, by count of the number of folds from the centre 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


403 


to the outside, calculating an average length for each fold. The tag 
attached to each piece giving factory length is usually accepted as the 
correct measurement, and is invariably found to agree with the invoiced 
measure. 

Query 4.—This query covers an assertion often made and but rarely 
verified, never within my knowledge. Collusion by the designation of 
false packages for examination at the public stores, while practicable 
except under such a system as now in use at New York, is attended 
with such risk of miscarriage or discovery that few would be willing to 
make the venture. In cases where this class of fraud was suspected, I 
have known whole consignments, and even cargoes, ordered to public 
stores for examination, without discovery in any instance. 

Query 5.—The classes of goods weighed on the wharves are heavy and 
bulky, and, being ordinarily subject to a low rate of duty, do not afford 
the incentive to corrupt or bribe the weighing officer. With proper 
supervision by the weigher in charge of a district, inadequate or incom¬ 
petent weighing could not well escape notice for any length of time. 
Discrepancies or returns of short weights uniformly by any assistant 
weigher may readily be discovered by variance with the invoiced and 
entered weights. 

Query 6.—I am unable to answer. 

Query 7.—The classes of goods coming under my personal observa¬ 
tion known to be undervalued, as determined by advances made on ap¬ 
praisement and repeatedly affirmed on reappraisement, are cotton laces 
and embroideries, tanned sheep-skins, (chamois,) lithographic-printing 
presses, varnishes, hosiery, kid gloves, and knit woollen goods. 

The evidences of undervaluation in cotton laces and embroideries 
were primarily based upon reports from the consul at St. G-alle and 
upon complaints made by importing firms doing business in New York 
and other cities. The evidences of failure to collect the proper revenue 
upon the lines of goods named, while questioned by the consignees, 
cannot be controverted successfully. 

Query 8.—Undervaluation, and consequent failure to collect the rev¬ 
enue, has been the steady growth of years, extending back to the days 
of the war and the high tariff of those times, and continued through 
succeeding years. It progressed each year, and so extended itself as to 
compel American importing firms to abandon purchasing abroad and 
buy, duties paid at the dollar price, through agents of foreign manu¬ 
facturers or their consignees in New York. 

So general has this system of consignment and agency business be¬ 
come, that New York is now the recognized market for silks, velvets, 
plushes, embroideries, and laces, and certain lines of fancy dress-goods. 
The American wholesale buyer can obtain better bargains in New York 
than from the manufacturer "abroad, calculating transportation charges 
and imposts. 

The growth of consignments has driven purchased importations away, 
so that consigned goods are often regarded as the standard of market 
value. According to the testimony of Examiner Fitch, now out of 
office, consigned goods were invoiced from 5 per cent, to 100 per cent, 
less than the purchased goods imported by leading American firms, the 
examiner’s theory being that the purchasing houses paid more than 
the market value "for their goods, and that the invoiced value of con¬ 
signed goods was the true criterion of dutiable value. 


404 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Lack of diligence and ignorance on the part of the assistant apprais¬ 
ers and their examiners are mainly responsible for undervaluations and 
the changes in trade brought about by its general prevalence in certain 
lines of goods. Appraising officers, in determining market values, 
attach but little weight to consuls’ advices of market value, as shown 
by reports on file at the Department. 

Query 9.—The appraising officers are by law directed to ascertain, 
by all reasonable means, the market value of imported goods, for the 
assessment of duties. In the discharge of this duty they are supposed 
to exercise their best judgment, and if, through mistake or wilful design, 
false dutiable values are returned, the error or fraud, in the absence of 
proof of collusion, no matter how suspicious the circumstances or con¬ 
spicuously low the return of dutiable value, can be shielded under the 
plea of mistaken judgment. 

While proofs of false returns of value cannot be adduced, the evidence 
of such returns may be inferred, with a reasonable degree of certainty, 
by discovery of undervaluation in lines of merchandise which had pre¬ 
viously been passed at their invoice value without question. 

Undervaluation had its origin in the high rates of ad valorem duties, 
and is not confined to any class or classes of articles, nor to any particular 
countries. It is practised chiefly by manufacturers abroad, who consign 
their products to agents and commission-houses in New York. It is 
also much practised by certain classes of importers through resident 
agents and forwarding agents in Europe, who make out invoices as ship¬ 
pers, without risk to themselves, at such prices as are likely to escape 
question at the New York custom-house. 

Query 10.—Market value has always been an element of uncertainty 
in the minds of customs officers, some of whom have held that the 
prices actually paid in the markets abroad constituted the basis of 
dutiable value, even when such prices were known to be less than the 
ruling market value. Much doubt has also existed on the q uestion of 
charges for cartons, boxes, or other coverings required to place the 
goods in a marketable condition. In other cases it has been held that 
when the purchaser of large quantities of goods obtains reduced rates 
in consideration of the extent of the purchase, such low rate constitutes 
market value for the goods so purchased. 

In a recent case coming under my observation the claim was made by 
a merchant appraiser that while the goods under appraisement were 
undoubtedly sold in England at higher rates to the wholesale trade in 
that country than to American purchasers and consignees, yet, in con¬ 
sideration of the extent of the purchases for the American trade, a 
special standard of dutiable value should be recognized for importa¬ 
tions into the United States. If I am advised correctly this view is in 
harmony with a decision of the Department, in an unpublished letter to 
the collector of customs at Boston, defining a dual market value, viz., 
a ruling market price for the home trade and a special market value for 
the American trade. 

In this connection it may be pertinent to call attention to Department 
Circular No. 30, paragraph 5, December 26, 1848, (Robert J. Walker 
Secretary,) and to the principles therein laid down concerning the stand¬ 
ard of market value. As far as my knowledge goes, the standard of 
market value, as defined by the circular mentioned, has never been 
modified or rescinded, although apparently overlooked in the Customs 
Regulations and the published decisions of the Department. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 405 

Query 11.—An estimated average of undervaluation and loss of reve¬ 
nue can only be problematical and based upon meagre and theoretic 
data, except in some few lines of goods not subject to fluctuations in 
value. In textile goods, the constantly changing designs, patterns, 
quality, supply, and demand, and the doubtful character of many of the 
importing firms, must prevent the procurement of accurate data. 

Articles undervalued and passed upon by the appraising officers can 
rarely, after the lapse of a short period, be identified. 

Query 12.—It is the chief duty of an examiner to be conversant with 
the market value of goods upon which he passes, and if false returns 
of value are made, he is primarily responsible for such false return in 
the ordinary course of business. He may fix the responsibility upon the 
assistant appraiser by calling his attention to questionable invoice values, 
and in cases of doubt as to values, or when an advance is made, it is 
always customary for the examiner to seek advice from the assistant 
appraiser. While the assistant appraiser supervises the work of his 
division and gives general attention to the appraisement of goods, he 
must depend mainly upon the judgment of his examiner, whose expe¬ 
rience should enable him to determine correct values. 

Section 2940, Revised Statutes, provides that no * person shall be ap¬ 
pointed examiner at the port of New York who is not at the time of his 
appointment acquainted with the character, quality, and value of the 
article in the appraisement of which he is to be employed. The non- 
observance of this provision of law by the appointments, in past years, 
of examiners entirely unfamiliar with the merchandise upon which 
they were to assess values contributed much to the growth of under¬ 
valuations. 

The salaries of examiners at New York vary from $1,800 to $2,500— 
meagre compensation for the skill required and the trusts imposed. 

Query 13.—I have no information as to this query. 

Query 14.—See reply to Question No. 9. 

Query 15.—If wilful false returns, through bribery or venality, have 
been made in the past, it is not unreasonable to presume that they are 
now made and will be made in the future. The purification of the ser¬ 
vice by the discharge of implicated officials and of others suspected of 
improper practices may deter and check others evil disposed from going 
wrong; but so long as there are inducements to corrupt an officer, so 
Tong will dishonest merchants or brokers make the attempt. This mo¬ 
tive exists in the evasion of the payment of full duties under the exist¬ 
ing high rate of ad valorem imposts. 

Query 16.—Ad valorem rates of duty afford temptations and oppor¬ 
tunities for fraud which cannot be guarded against, even by the most 
rigid rules and vigilant watchfulness. The assessment of values under 
this system is based upon expert knowledge of values, the most uncer¬ 
tain and arbitrary method that could be devised. Under the ad valo-» 
rem system fraud has prospered and demoralized the importing trade, 
which has passed from the hands of American citizens into the control 
of men who have taken advantage of our high import duties to enrich 
themselves at the expense of the revenue and the ruined trade of Ameri¬ 
can wholesale firms. Fraud of this nature is difficult to detect, and more 
difficult still to establish. In the absence of documentary proof, it re¬ 
solves itself into a mere difference of opinion between experts; and the 
owner of the suspected goods can at all times procure experts who will 
maintain the correctness of his invoice prices, or he may select an easier 


406 REPORT OF TIIE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and more convincing and efficacious line of defence by procuring affida¬ 
vits from liis buyer or partner abroad to the effect that the invoice cost 
was the actual price paid for the goods. 

An examiner, if dishonestly inclined, may return false values under 
the eyes of the deputy appraiser or investigating officer without appre¬ 
hension of discovery. 

While fraud may be perpetrated under the system of specific rates 
by return of false weights and measures and by false classification, the 
officer lending himself to such fraud exposes himself to risks, sure in the 
end to lead to discovery, discharge from the service, and prosecution 
under the law, because false weights and measures and false classifications 
cannot, as in the case of undervaluation, be sheltered by the specious 
claim of mistaken judgment. 

Specific rates of duty may largely be substituted for ad valorem rates 
in textile fabrics, but not entirely so without placing the most costly 
goods on a par with the cheapest. This is the chief objection against 
the specific rate; but admitting that the application of the system to 
textile fabrics would in certain lines of goods operate objectionably, the 
evil would not be near as great as the abuse of the ad valorem rate. 
France, after many years’ experience and careful study by a commis¬ 
sion of eminent citizens, almost wholly obliterated the ad valorem 
system, substituting therefor specific and, in a few instances, compound 
rates. 

Query 17.—The repeal of the moiety law and the modification of the 
law authorizing seizure of books and papers restricted the power of 
customs officers in the pursuit of fraud. While the Government still 
has the power to examine, books and papers, this power can only be 
exercised under the sanction and authority of a justice of a United States 
court, and the particular books and papers must be described before 
such sanction is given. Under the old law an officer could make an 
unexpected descent on a suspected importer and, having power to ex¬ 
amine all books and papers, could discover fraud if any existed. While 
the power conferred under this law was arbitrary and liable to abuse r 
the honest merchant had nothing to apprehend from its operation. 

The repeal of the moiety act removed all incentive to the giving of 
information by clerks or other employes possessed of knowledge of 
fraudulent doings by their employers. 

While the repeal of the laws in question contributed in some measure 
to undervaluation, it is doubtful that such repeal or modification can 
fairly be said to have brought about the great increase of undervalua¬ 
tion in the past ten or fifteen years. About ten or fifteen years ago a 
new class of importers invaded the commercial life of New York, and 
their prosperity from the outset attracted others of their kind to enter 
the importing trade. 

Restrictive and penal laws devised to protect the revenue cannot be 
‘effective so long as high ad valorem rates exist. Cause can always be 
shown to the satisfaction of a jury, in criminal prosecutions for under¬ 
valuations, that there was no wilful intent to commit fraud. 

Query 18.—The American consuls in the chief commercial cities of 
Europe, by the extent and variety of articles shipped from their consular 
districts to the United States, cannot, without giving good reason for 
complaint from foreign shippers to their governments, on the ground 
of vexatious exactions and delays, give such personal examination to 
the verification of the correctness of invoiced values as would prove of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 407 

value to the appraising officers in the United States. Commercial 
agents or special agents, few in number, stationed abroad could render 
valuable assistance to the consuls and to the Government by investiga¬ 
tions of special lines of goods paying ad valorem duties. All such goods 
investigated by Special Agent Tichenor, when abroad, resulted in the 
collection of increased revenue. 

Query 19.—Under existing law, a merchant, feeling aggrieved by an 
appraiser’s assessment, has the right of appeal to a board of reappraise¬ 
ment, consisting of a general appraiser and a merchant familiar with 
the goods under appraisement. Appeals are generally decided quickly 
and equitably, and the appellant, as a rule, gets the benefit of any doubt 
which may exist. 

A judicial tribunal for the hearing of cases involving questions of 
value would be but poorly suited to deal with such matters. Court 
methods are usually slow, and cases of undervaluation which are now 
settled in a half-hour might, under court forms and procedure, be un¬ 
der consideration for years. Time in the determination of market value 
is of great importance to the merchant whose goods are undervalued; 
postponements for a month or two may, by fluctuations in supply and 
demand, styles, designs, &c., so change the market value as to render 
expert testimony wholly unreliable. Under the law, the goods under 
appraisement, or one package in ten thereof, must be examined by the 
appraising or reappraising officers. There can be no appraisement or 
ascertainment of values unless the goods are present. Under court pro¬ 
cedure it is presumed that the same rule would hold good, which would 
mean the detention of the goods for a long time. 

Queries 20, 21.—I am unable to answer. 

Query 22.—See answer to Questions 8 and 16. 

Querry 23.—I am unable to answer as to failure to collect the revenue 
at the leading Atlantic ports, but from personal knowledge I am enabled 
to say that such was the case in San Francisco. 

Query 24.—See answers to Questions 1 and 9. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 

JAMES D. POWER, 

Special Agent . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


No. 22. 

C. C. ADAMS—Entered the Department as Chief ot a Division, (Currency, September 
1, 1874.) Was subsequently appointed Chief of Appointment Division December 28, 
1874. Appointed Special Agent July 10, 1875. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Philadelphia , October 8, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the confidential 
circular dated August 27th last, and to submit the following answers to 
the questions contained therein: 

Inquiry 1.—I believe that rates of duty have as a rule been properly 
levied and collected. Where not, it has been owing more to lack of 
system for comparison of these rates as levied at the different ports, and 
of knowledge on the part of the appraising officers, than to any other 
cause. 



408 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


At Boston and some of the other ports silk-plush covered albums 
were for a time returned at 35 per cent., as a manufacture not otherwise 
provided for, while at New York they were passed at 60 per cent, ad 
valorem, under section 2499. (See Synopsis, 5590 ) 

At Toledo silk lace, dutiable under the old tariff at 60 per cent., was 
returned by the appraising officer as cotton lace at 35 per cent. The 
error in the first instance was owing to a misapplication of law, and in 
the latter it seems to have been attributable to uufamiliarity on the 
part of the appraiser with the article upon which he had to pass. 

In Boston certain “necktie silks,’’ composed of silk and cotton, were 
passed by the appraiser, under the old law, as dutiable at 50 per cent., 
on the belief that cotton was 25 per cent, or over in value. In New 
York the same kind of goods were returned at 60 per cent, ad valorem, 
silk chief value. In Boston the facilities for determining the relative 
value of the different materials entering into the manufacture of the 
goods were not so complete as they were in New York, hence the dis¬ 
crepancy. 

At this port and Boston the so-called “taffeta” or “plated” gloves 
were for a considerable length of time returned as “silk and cotton 
gloves, cotton chief value, manufacture of cotton, noil-enumerated, at 
35 per cent.” In New York these goods were classified at 50 per cent., 
silk chief value. At this port they were passed without any test be¬ 
yond that which the examiner made by mere sight and touch alone. 

In Boston the tests were somewhat different, but not sufficient to de¬ 
termine the classification to which the goods really belonged. 

Finally, after careful chemical tests by competent experts at Boston 
and New York, it was clearly shown that silk was chief value, so a uni¬ 
form rate of duty was established by the Department on this class of 
merchandise. (See Synopsis, 6846.) 

Under the present system, differences in rates of duty levied at the 
several ports will frequently arise, and there does not seem to be any 
easy or certain way of preventing them. They cause not only loss to 
the revenue, but serious loss to the importers paying the higher rates 
of duty. 

The instructions of June 16 last to the general appraisers, directing 
them to require appraising officers to furnish them daily samples of 
all textile and other goods examined and appraised by them, of which 
samples can be taken, for comparison at a meeting of the board of gen¬ 
eral appraisers and others to be designated for the work, is a step 
towards a better system than now prevails in this regard. 

To be of any practical use, however, it is important that comparisons 
of the samples taken should be made frequently, to the end that differ¬ 
ences in classification and values may be corrected as soon as possible 
after they arise. And again, unless this is frequently done, the accu¬ 
mulation of samples will become so great as to render the work of hand¬ 
ling, assorting, classifying, and recording, as well as comparison, diffi¬ 
cult to perform, and, in consequence thereof, unsatisfactory in its results. 

Inquiry 2.—Not within my knowledge. 

Inquiry 3.—By now and then measuring a piece of goods; by weigh¬ 
ing the same, ascertaining the average weight per yard, metre, or anne, 
and applying this to the entire number in the piece. Where goods are 
folded the length is ascertained by counting the folds. Many of the 
heavier fabrics are rolled by machinery, and these, it is claimed by 
some of the examiners, cannot easily be measured, as, once unrolled, it is 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 409 

difficult to get them back into the same compass again. My observa¬ 
tion is that but little attention has been paid to the measurement of 
fabrics, the length being generally taken from the invoice. 

Inquiry 4.—There is none that I am aware of that such has been the 
case for a number of years. The last transaction of this nature coming 
to my knowledge occurred at the port of Boston, where a large ship¬ 
ment of silk lastings, dutiable at the time of their importation at 60 per 
cent., was passed as hide-cuttings, free. I may not be correct in my 
impression that the lastings were passed upon false examination pack¬ 
ages containing hide-cuttings, but I am in stating that silk lastings were 
passed as hide-cuttings. Previous to this, the most notorious transac¬ 
tions of the nature in question were the so-called Lawrence frauds, 
perpetrated at the port of New York. 

Inquiry 5.—None at this port. I cannot say positively that there is at 
any other, but there is reason to believe that in at least two weighing 
districts at the port of New York, if thorough investigation could be 
had, it would be discovered that the methods pursued in those districts 
are questionable. I am told that memoranda of weights of weighable 
merchandise are furnished by the importers to the weighers, and that 
from these memoranda their returns are made up. These rumors refer 
to the districts in cl age of Weighers --and-. 

Inquiry 6 .—As this question involves so much relating to the duties 
of the law officers of the Government, I do not feel competent to an¬ 
swer it in all its bearings. 

The number of collector’s suits now pending at this port are given 
in the accompanying statement marked “A.” 

There does not appear to be any necessity in this district for the es¬ 
tablishment of a new tribunal to try questions growing out of the execu¬ 
tion of the internal-revenue and customs laws; and this, I believe, is 
the fact in regard to all the ports except, possibly, New York. I also 
believe that the present judicial system is sufficient, if properly ar¬ 
ranged and managed, to meet the requirements of both the Government 
and the people. At this and other ports of like importance there ought 
not to be such great delay as exists in bringing suits. 

Inquiry 7.—In New York silk goods of all descriptions, Swiss em¬ 
broideries, feathers, artificial flowers, patent medicines, earthenware, 
varnishes, wool, and many other articles which I cannot now recall. 

At Philadelphia, wool, cutlery, guns, lithographic prints, cotton 
yarns, embroideries, machinery, and medicinal preparations. 

The evidence of failure to collect the proper amount of duty upon 
these articles is generally of such a character it cannot possibly be con¬ 
troverted. 

Inquiry 8 .—The failure has come about in various ways, among them, 
first, difficulty in obtaining correct information as to foreign market 
values; second, lack of proper effort on the part of examining and ap¬ 
praising officers to obtain values and to acquaint themselves with the 
character and history of the goods examined by them; third, fear on 
the part of some that if they advanced the values on an importer’s in¬ 
voice, he would use his influence, often powerful, to have them censured 
by their superior officers or dismissed the service 5 fourth, disinclina¬ 
tion in a great many cases to acknowledge, by making use of reliable 
information, when placed before them, that they have for months, 
possibly for years, been passing goods at false values; fifth, in some 
cases there seems to be no doubt that failure to return proper values has 




410 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

been owing to the fact that the examiner was under obligations, pecu¬ 
niary or otherwise, to the importer; sixth, by erroneous views as to 
what constitutes foreign market values. 

At this port the Department was unfortunate in having for many 
years an appraiser who, in great measure, allowed his prejudices, with 
which he was filled to an unusual degree, to warp his judgment and to 
control his official action, to the detriment of the service and the revenue. 
He seemed imbued with the idea that he had mastered everything which 
could be learned or known in connection with the business of his office, 
and was a law unto himself. 

His disposition was never to consider information obtained by consular 
officers and special agents if he could possibly avoid it. He held them, 
and anything they might have to offer, in the utmost contempt. That 
they should presume to present evidence touching the question of values, 
or showing fraud and undervaluation in the importation of merchandise, 
was to him something which ought not to be tolerated. Under such dis¬ 
couragements, and with too frequently no support from the Department, 
it is not to be wondered at that if for long periods but little was accom¬ 
plished in the matter of putting an end to frauds, or that during such 
periods they increased. 

That the revenue should suffer under such a state of misrule is not a 
matter for surprise. That it did suffer very seriously is abundantly 
shown by the history of the wool frauds and other similar transaction . 

While it cannot be truly said that the appraiser referred to was eitli r 
ignorant, indolent, or dishonest, some of the results of his ad ministrati n 
of the important office of which he had control were the same as if he 
had possessed all these faults in combination. I mention these facts, 
not in any spirit of attack against a man now out of the service, but to 
show, although it goes without saying, that decency in office is as neces¬ 
sary as honesty, and that in the conduct of the public business they 
should travel together. 

Inquiry 9.—To the first part of this question, marked (1), I answer 
ever since the cupidity of dishonest merchants and manufacturers was 
awakened and sharpened by the unwise legislation contained in the act 
of June 22, 1874, known as the anti-moiety law. (2.) Silks, fancy 
goods, embroideries, and almost every important line of merchandise 
shipped from continental Europe. (3.) Generally from Germany, 
France, Switzerland, and Austria. In a very much less amount from 
England, Ireland, and Scotland, owing to the character of the people 
and their laws in regard to false swearing. (4.) In a majority of cases 
by the manufacturers. (5.) This condition of affairs has existed in a 
greater or less degree at all the principal ports on the seaboard. As 
the bulk of the importations have been made at New York, the greater 
frauds have in consequence been committed there. 

In regard to the values of embroideries, there is the evidence of honest 
manufacturers and importers, and the fact that large advances in values 
have recently been made and sustained. The same is the fact concern¬ 
ing earthenware and china. As regards silk goods, there has been 
greater difficulty in obtaining positive information as to correct values. 
In the matter of the wool frauds were statements, under oath by a 
member of one of the firms shipping the goods, that if it had not been 
possible for them to make the false charges and commissions which 
appeared upon their invoices, they could not have shipped the wool at 
the prices entered upon those invoices. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 411 


In the matter of the undervaluation of cotton yarns were the state¬ 
ments of persons who had imported the yarns for years, and the fact that 
after the frauds in their values were discovered the person entering the 
goods, upon suit being brought against him for the recovery of the duties 
illegally withheld, offered to pay in compromise the sum of $15,000, 
and to that end deposited the amount named. This offer, however, was 
not accepted by the Government; so he withdrew his deposit, and finally 
settled the case by the payment of about $4,000. 

Concerning the undervaluation of guns and cutlery at this port, the 
statements of the special agents have been sustained by the evidence of 
reliable American houses dealing in the same goods, and by the fact 
that all advances have been sustained on reappraisement. 

Inquiry 10.—There has been and still is much confusion and doubt in 
the minds of many appraising officers as to what constitutes true market 
value. 

High-class importing houses deal only in selected goods. With them 
the aim is to have everything as perfect as possible in texture, color, 
and finish. They will not handle defective pieces, or what are known 
as “job lots.” Other houses will buy both, and, getting the poorer 
quality at prices less than is asked for the good alone, will use them to 
reduce the price of the latter and have their invoices made out accord¬ 
ingly. 

If the prices at which the goods are entered are questioned here on 
examination, the importer is prepared to prove that the transaction 
was a bona fide purchase, and that the amount set forth on the invoice 
was the sum actually paid for the goods. There seems to be no doubt 
of the truth of this statement. At any rate the examiner has no means 
of refuting it, and having it in his mind, as many of them do, that the 
matter of market value depends upon the amount of money, credit, or 
other advantage which one purchaser may possess or claim to possess 
over another, the invoice is returned correct as entered. 

As an example of this kind of reasoning, I have known of three in¬ 
voices of identically the same goods, coming to as many different houses 
in New York, to be passed by the same examiner, on the same day, at 
three different valuations. 

Inquiry 11.—This depends very much on the class of merchandise. 
In the wool, embroidery, and earthenware undervaluations, I would 
answer yes. In the matter of silk goods, it would be more difficult, 
although the advances which have been made on them ought to serve 
as a pretty safe guide in arriving at an average estimate of the percent¬ 
age of undervaluation. In my opinion it will not, taking into consid¬ 
eration all classes of merchandise, fall below 20 per cent., and it may 
reach as high as 30 per cent. 

Inquiry 12.—The examiner, undoubtedly. The number of examiners 
and their salaries at this port is, one at $2,000 and six at $1,700 each. 
Formerly they received $1,800 per annum each; but a reduction in ex¬ 
penses of collecting the revenue from customs, which went into effect on 
the 1st of January, 1877, cut them down to $1,700 a year each, where 
they have since remained, except in the case of the one now receiving 
$2,000. The appraisers at the principal ports cannot possibly examine 
the work of their subordinates in detail, and must necessarily forward 
their returns as made, except in cases to which their attention has been 
specially called. 

Inquiry 13.—I have no knowledge as to this. 


412 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. 


Inquiry 14.—Scarcely. Dishonesty has undoubtedly had a share in 
this failure. So also have carelessness, lack of system, unwise legisla¬ 
tion, ignorance, &c. While reasonably certain that dishonesty has been 
practised by certain persons lately in the service, it would be difficult 
to prove that such was the fact. As to the remainder of the question, I 
have no knowledge. 

Inquiry 15.—If the present laws, which give to the dishonest impor¬ 
ter advantage over the honest one, and which serve as a finger-board to 
fraud, are not changed, there can be no reason to believe that corrup¬ 
tion will cease in the customs service. 

The discharge of incompetent persons and those believed to be dis¬ 
honest, and the adoption of the rule that every employ^ will be held to 
a strict accountability for his conduct, has led to a very decided change 
for the better in the administration of the customs business; and when 
the laws complained of are purged of their faults there will be but 
little inducement for officials to go astray. 

Inquiry 16.—Undoubtedly. While it would not close all avenues to 
fraud—-for cheating could still be carried on as to weights and measure¬ 
ments—it would be a great improvement over the present ad valorem 
system. Any faults which it might have could more easily be looked 
after and corrected than the undervaluations which are now carried on 
to such an alarming extent. I see no difficulty in applying specific 
rates to all textile fabrics. 

Inquiry 17.—Yes. 

Inquiry 18.—I think not; but much more could and ought to be ac¬ 
complished in the direction of ascertaining the correctness of invoice 
values than is now the case. I can see that it would be exceedingly 
difficult and delicate for consuls to examine goods shipped from their 
respective districts to this country. Consignors and shippers in Great 
Britain would object, principally, to the delay which such examinations 
would cause. Only, probably, in the consular districts of Great Brit¬ 
ain, and possibly Switzerland, could consular officers ascertain with 
any degree of safety and certainty the true value of goods shipped to 
this country. On the continent, as before noted, it is different. There 
is no special regard for the oaths taken to consular invoices, as there 
is no provision for punishment which can be applied if they are false. 
It is common report that in many instances the persons signing the in¬ 
voices, and who are supposed to have taken and been sworn to the 
oaths thereon, do not go near the consulates, but sign their papers in 
their counting-rooms and send them by messenger to the consuls, who 
return them with their signature and seal attached. 

As the great bulk of goods entered at fraudulent values in this country 
came from continental Europe, there would, in my judgment, be trouble 
in case of any attempt on the part of consular officers towards making 
an examination of goods coming from their districts. The persons in¬ 
terested would combine in making complaint to their respective gov¬ 
ernments, and the usefulness which the consuls can now exercise would 
be entirely swept away. 

An examination of ‘invoices coming to this port shows that the fee 
charged by the consul at London and at the other consulates in Eng¬ 
land is 10 shillings. 

Inquiry 19.—It seems to me that the decision of an appraiser should 
be final as to values, except in case of probable fraud in his returns. 
Greater jurisdiction on the part of the executive or judicial powers 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 41 3 


would be apt to lead to confusion, and to cause serious delay in the final 
adjustment of values and the liquidation of entries. It would tend to 
make the work of collecting the revenue more difficult and burdensome 
than it now is, to both the importer and the Government. 

Inquiry 20.—Owing to my many other duties, and the lack of any¬ 
thing like proper information on this subject, as well as the difficulty 
I would have in obtaining it, I am unable to answer this question. 

Inquiry 21.—At the port of New York the practice of the payment of 
money by passengers arriving from foreign countries, especially Europe, 
to customs inspectors for “ facilitating ” the examination of their bag¬ 
gage prevails to a shameful extent. The fault of this lies not originally 
with the passenger. The inspector is primarily to blame, and he is 
bold and unscrupulous in his demands. Unless they are acceded to, 
he can, or has been able in the past, to put the man who had nothing 
dutiable in his possession to trouble, delay, and expense. To escape 
these, there are but few men who would hesitate in paying $5 or $10, 
although knowing and feeling they were not doing right. The inspector 
who will take the money has no conscientious scruples whatever. If 
the sum given him is small, he will say so, and intimate in plain lan¬ 
guage that it should be augmented, although there have been those on 
the force in New York who would take whatever a passenger could 
afford to give, even as low as 75 cents. 

How to discover and put an end to these practices is a difficult ques¬ 
tion to answer. Collector Merritt employed a special officer to mingle 
with the crowd on the arrival of a steamer, and to note, so far as able, 
the actions of the inspectors and the manner in which they performed 
their duties. The result of his labors was the dismissal of something 
like a dozen inspectors in a short time, for taking money for passing 
baggage containing dutiable merchandise. 

If inspectors felt reasonably certain that, if caught taking a bribe, or 
in passing merchandise without reporting it for duty, they would be 
punished under the law, it would effect in this respect a change for the 
better in their conduct. 

Inquiry 22.—I think not, if the laws are changed so that the dishonest 
shipper’s goods can be seized and confiscated on proof that the value at 
which they were entered was fraudulent. 

Inquiry 23.—No; only partially so. 

Inquiry. 24.—Lack of positive proof, probably, that they were false; 
difficulty in obtaining such proof in shape to be made available in a 
trial, and inattention to complaints which were made. In other words, 
the power of the pomplained against was greater than the power of those 
making the complaints. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. C. ADAMS, 

Special Agent . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


414 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 


No. 20. 


Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Philadelphia , October 9, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith classified statement of 
the customs suits now pending in the United States courts in this district, 
to accompany my report in reply to the questions asked in the confi¬ 
dential circular of the Department dated August 27 last, transmitted 
to you on yesterday. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

0. 0. ADAMS, 

Special Agent 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


Classified Statement of Customs Suits now pending in the United States Courts 

at Philadelphia. 

No. 1.—Question under section 7, under the act of March 3, 1883, as 
to what charges should be included as a part of the dutiable value. 


Date when 
case was at 
issue. 


Mar. 11,1884 

73. 

Mar. 11,1884 

74. 


75. 

Mar. 11,1884 

76. 

Mar. 11,1884 

77. 

Mar. 11,1884 

78. 

Mar. 11,1884 

79. 

Mar. 11,1884 

80. 

Mar. 11,1884 

83. 

Mar. 11,1884 

84. 

Mar. 11,1884 

85. 


86. 

Mar. 11,1884 

87. 

Mar. 11,1884 

88. 

Mar. 11,1884 

89. 

Mar. 15,1884 

90. 

Mar. 11,1884 

91. 

Mar. 11,18.84 

92. 

Mar. 11,1884 

93. 

June 10,1884 

94. 

June 10,1884 

95. 

June 10,1884 

96. 

June 10,1884 

103. 

June 10,1884 

104. 

June 10,1884 

115. 

June 10,1884 

118. 

Sept. 3,1884 

119. 

Sept. 3,1884 

120. 

Sept. 3,1884 

121. 

Sept. 3,1884 

122 

Sept. 3,1884 

123. 

Sept. 3,1884 

125. 

Sept. 3,1884 

126. 

Sept. 3,1884 

127. 

Sept. 3,1884 

128. 

Sept. 3,1884 

19. 

Sept. 3,1884 

61. 

Sept. 3,1884 

77. 

Sept. 3,1884 

20. 

Sept. 3,1884 

27. 


Number and term. 


4. 

5. 

6 . 
12 . 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 
17. 
32. 
64. 

74. 

75. 

76. 
78. 

90. 

91. 

92. 

93. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 
46. 

57. 

58. 
60. 
61. 
62. 
63. 
66 . 

67. 

68 . 

69. 

70. 

71. 

72. 


October session, 1883 , 
October session, 1883 
October session, 1883 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883 , 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883. 
October session, 1883 , 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883 , 
October session, 1883 , 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883. 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883 . 
October session, 1883 . 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1881. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session. 1884. 

April session, 1884. 


Date when 


Number and term. 


case was at 


issue. 


April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884.... 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884 . 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884 . 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884 ....». 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884. 

April session, 1884 . 

October session, 1884. 

October session, 1884. 

October session, 1884. 

April session, 1885. 

April session, 1885. 


Sept. 3,1884 
Sept. 3,1884 
Sept. 3,1884 
Sept. 3,1884 
Sept. 3,1884 
Sept. 3,1884 
Sept. 3,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 

Sept. 6,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Oct. 4,1884 
Dec. 19,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 
Sept. 6,1884 

Feb. 27,1885 
Feb. 27,1885 

Sept. 23,1885 


iso. 2.—Question whether bichromate o f soda should be classified under 
the similitude clause of section 2499, Revised Statutes, as subject to duty 






























































































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 415 


at 3 cents per pound, or is an article not specially enumerated, subject 
to a duty of 25 per cent v ad valorem. 

„ anf * l erm - Date when case was at issue. 

October session, 1884 ... • •• Febmarv 27 1885 

28. April session, 1885.September?, 1885! 

This suit has just been tried and verdict rendered as to fact. Question of law yet to be argued. 

No. 3.—Question whether Hoff's Malt Extract is subject to duty as 
a proprietary preparation, dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem, or should 
be classified as beer, subject to a duty of 35 cents per gallon. 


Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

46. April session, 1883..’. March 11, 1884. 

SI. October session, 1883. March 11, 1884. 

No. 4.—Question as to the value of sponges. 


Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

38. October session, 1881. May 2, 1882. 

39. October session, 1881. May 2, 1882. 

No. 5.—Question whether certain articles are a manufacture of wool, 
and subject to duty at 50 cents pound and an additional duty of 35 per 
cent, ad valorem, under Schedule L, class 3, or to a duty of 35 per cent., 
under Schedule M. 


Number and term. 
26. April session, 1877. 

87. April session, 1883. 

88. April session, 1883. 


Date when case was at issue. 

. September 3. 1877. 

. March 15, 1884. 

. March 15, 1884. 


No. 6.—Question whether certain articles should be classified under 
Schedule C, act of March 3, 1883, as not specially enumerated, and 
subject to a duty of 45 per cent, ad valorem, or as buttons, subject to a 
duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem; also, question of charges. 


Number and term. 

Date when 
case was at 
issue. 

Number and term. 

Date when 
case was at 
issue. 

56. April session, 1883. 

58. April session, 18X3........ 

67. April session, 1883. 

4 . April session, 1884. 

Mar. 11, 1884 
Mar. 11, 1884 
Mar. 11, 1884 
Apr. 5,1884 

129. April session, 1884 .,....•. . 

51. October session, 1x84. 

52. October session. 1884. 

6. April session, 1885. 

Dec. 19,1884 
Feb. 27,1885 
Feb. 27,1885 
Sept. 7,1885 


No. 7.—Question whether certain articles are to be classified as sub¬ 
ject to a duty of 20 per cent., as mineral bituminous substances. 


Number and term. 

Date when 
case was at 
issue. 

Number and term. 

Date when 
case was at 
issue. 

15. October session, 1879. 

13. April session, 1881. 

45. April session, 1881. 

66. April session, 1881. 

£7. October session, 1881. 

Mar. 6,1880 
June 28,1881 
Sept. 14,1881 

Aug. 14,1885 

16. April session, 1882. 

10. October session, 1882. 

49. April session, 1883. 

62. October session, 1884. 

Sept. 11,1882 
Aug. 14,1885 
Aug. 14,1885 
Feb. 27,1885 


No. 8.—Question whether certain articles should be classified as 
handkerchiefs or other manufacture of fax subject to a duty of 35 percent, 
ad valorem, or as a manufacture of linen, emboridered, dutiable at 30 
per cent, ad valorem. 


Number and term. 
2. April session, 1885 


Date when ease was at issue. 
. September 7, 1885. 


















































41G REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 9.—Question whether down quilts should be classified as subject 
to duty at 50 per cent, under Schedule L, act March 3, 1883. 

Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

4. April session, 1885. September 7, 1885. 

No. 10.—Question whether certain articles should be classified as 
china or earthenware , subject to a duty of 60 per cent, ad valorem, or as 
toys at 35 per cent. 

Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

117. April session, 1884. October 4, 1884. 

No. 11.—Question as to duty on steel blooms. 

Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

33. April session, 1883. March 11, 1884. 


No. 12.—Question as to valuation of certain machinery , and protest 
against merchant appraisement. 

Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

3. April session, 1882... August 30, 1882. 


No. 13.—Question as to the rate of duty on certain articles known 
commercially as hat-trimmings or hat and bonnet ribbons, &c. 


Number and term. 

Date when 
case was at 
issue. 

Number and term. 

Date when 
case was at 
issue. 

18. October session, 1875. 

59. April session, 1876. 

33. April session, 1881. 

75. October session, 1881. 

3. April session, 1884. 

Dec. 14,1876 
Dec. 14,1876 
June 28,1881 
Jan. 24,1882 
Apr. 5,1884 

28. April session, 1884. 

59. April session, 1884. 

124. April session, 1884. 

12. April session, 1885. 

June 10, l>- 4 
Sept. 3,11 4 
Oct. 4,188* 


No. 14.—Question as to the rate of duty on marble. 

gNumber and term. Date when case was at issue. 

g0. October session, 1883. March 11, 1884. 

2. October session, 1877. This case is virtually ended, and duties refunded. 

®1. October session, 1880. No narrative filed or bill of particulars furnished. 


No. 24. 

GEO. W. WHITEHEAD—Entered service as Inspector of Customs port of Suspension 
Bridge, N. Y., December 4, 1879. Appointed Special Agent January 11, 1884. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Suspension Bridge , N. Y., October 13, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully referring to Department circular of August 27, 
containing twenty-four questions relating to the administration of cus¬ 
toms laws, I have the honor to report that absence from official station 
under instructions from Department has prevented earlier attention to 
the subject. 

My duties as agent of the Department have been confined to the ser¬ 
vice on the northern frontier, and I am, therefore, not entirely familiar 
with the service at seaboard ports, to which most of the questions refer. 

In answer to Questions 1 and 2,1 have to report that there is no evi¬ 
dence in my possession that the rates of duty and the full amount of 
duty prescribed by Congress have not been collected. 
























REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 417 

3. Textile fabrics are measured or weighed as may be necessary. 

4. At ports on the frontier the whole invoice is examined by ap¬ 
praising officers, except in case of goods arriving under immediate-trans¬ 
portation entry without appraisement. I have no evidence of collusion 
between the persons referred to. 

5. With rare exceptions, the importations requiring weights or 
measures to be taken, as referred to in this question, are entries of 
grain and lumber. So far as my observation extends, the officers en¬ 
gaged in weighing and measuring are competent, and while it is often 
necessary to estimate quantities, as permitted by regulation, I believe 
that the full amount of duty has been collected. I haye no evidence 
to the contrary. 

6. 7, and 8 relate to subjects on which I have no evidence. 

9, 10, and 11. There is satisfactory evidence that the appraising offi¬ 
cer has reported false values in the district of Buffalo Creek for at least 
five years past on importations of cattle from Canada. The evidence 
to corroborate this statement is with dealers and other persons familiar 
with the Canadian markets, and can be produced whenever opportunity 
is afforded on reappraisals. 

Appraising officers are unwilling to impose penal duties, and the re¬ 
sult is, as I have frequently reported to the Department, that the real 
judgment of the officer is not returned. There is not so much attention 
given to the ascertainment of dutiable values as there is effort to avoid 
the imposition of penalties. In other words, the Government would 
receive a largely increased revenue from this source if no penalties ac¬ 
crued by reason of advances on appraisals. 

A safe estimate can be made of the percentage of such undervalua¬ 
tions and the invoices identified. The cattle are consigned, however, 
and, having entered into consumption, such estimate or identification 
of invoices would be of no benefit. 

12. In the cases last referred to, a deputy collector and inspector is 
acting as appraiser, at a salary of $3.50 per diem. 

13. I have no evidence that consular or other officers have assisted 
in the presentation of false invoices. 

14 and 15. These questions seem to me to refer to the action of ap¬ 
praisers at Hew York and other seaboard ports. I have no evidence 
of bribery or venality in connection with appraisals. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates is advisable, in my 
judgment, whenever such change is practicable, though I cannot see 
that the change would help to diminish bribery. If corrupt and venal 
influences can be brought to bear on officers, the incentive and oppor¬ 
tunities will be quite as great under one form as another. 

The great variety and the difference in cost of manufacture of texile 
fabrics render it impracticable, in my opinion, to apply specific rates 
to such goods. 

17. I do not think the repeal of the “moiety law’ 7 has increased 
frauds on the frontier. 

Section 16 of the act of June 22, 1874, which provides that the ques¬ 
tion of “intent to defraud’ 7 shall be submitted to the jury and a find¬ 
ing required thereon, renders it difficult to obtain a verdict for the 
Government in any action brought for violation of the customs laws. 

18. It would be possible for consular officers in Canada to ascertain 
and report the true value of shipments, if allowed sufficient time for 
the purpose. As at present constituted, such consular service is of 

27 A 


418 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


little aid to the customs service. Invoices are certified as presented, 
•without the slightest knowledge on the part of the officer as to their 
correctness. 

19. I believe that the basis on which ad valorem duties are to be col¬ 
lected should be ascertained by the appraiser, and that judicial inter¬ 
ference would not be just to the importer, though it might be useful to 
the revenue. 

20. The importations of wool on the northern frontier are, without 
exception, of the Canada combing wools—class two. The inconsisten¬ 
cies in the present wool tariff can be better pointed out and illustrated 
by customs officers at ports where different classes of wool are im¬ 
ported, and I will not attempt to discuss the subject. 

21. I think the belief is general that the practice prevails of the 
payment of money to customs inspectors by passengers arriving at the 
port of New York. I have no evidence on the subject, and can only 
express the opinion that it is not difficult to ascertain whether or not 
the belief is well founded. If the practice exists, the detection and 
prosecution of a few cases, both of the officer receiving and the person 
paying money to prevent the examination of baggage, would go far 
towards correcting the evil. 

22 and 23. These questions appear to me to relate to recent investi¬ 
gations by commissions of Treasury officers. I have no information 
on the subject. 

24. All cases of fraud within my knowledge have been reported to 
the Department, and, if the case required, to the collector of customs 
and United States attorney. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. W. WHITEHEAD, 

Special Agent. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 25. 

O. L. SPAULDING—Appointed Special Agent July 28, 1875. Resigned March 3> 
1881, and reappointed Special Agent December 24, 1884. 

J. F. EVANS—Entered service in Register’s Office April 8, 1862. Appointed to clerk¬ 
ship hi Comptroller’s Office September 5, 1863. Appointed Special Agent February 
3, 1875. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

San Francisco , Cal ., October 6, 1885. 
Sir: We have the honor to submit the following reply to interroga¬ 
tories contained in Department’s confidential circular dated August 
27, 1885. & 

1. We have no knowledge in our possession that the “rates of duty ” 
prescribed by law have not been collected, except as to articles upon 
which the rates of duty have been a matter of controversy. 

2. We have no evidence, nor does our experience lead us to believe, 
that legal duty has not been collected upon importations paying a spe¬ 
cific rate. 

Articles such as rice, coal, coke, sugar, cigars, glass, hemp, jute, 
railway-bars, tin, salt, Ac., are not wholly weighed, but a sufficient 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 419 


quantity of each, not less than 10 per cent., to determine the quantity 
imported. 

3. A percentage of textile fabrics, usually about 10 per cent., is 
opened, taken out of the case, measured or weighed, or both, as the 
case may be ; samples are taken for use of the appraiser, and such of 
them preserved as are deemed to be of value for future use. 

4. We know of no evidence showing collusion between entry-clerks, 
deputy collectors, and importers by which false or unfair packages are, 
or have been, sent to the appraiser for examination as representing the 
entire invoice. Such collusion might be practised. A safeguard 
against its possibility would be the occasional examination of entire 
cargoes. 

5. We have no evidence of false weighing upon the wharves. Occa¬ 
sionally men are found to be incompetent, a matter which is corrected 
by the substitution of others familiar with the use of weighing imple¬ 
ments and the method of testing and keeping them in order. 

6. In respect to suits pending against collectors in Boston, New York, 
Philadelphia, and Baltimore concerning rates of duty, we have no 
knowledge except that of hearsay. The Government has been very 
unfortunate at San Francisco in its defence of suits against the collector. 
We would think the reasons for failure would be disclosed in reports 
to the Attorney-General by the United States attorney. 

We do not think it would be judicious, as a rule, for the Govern¬ 
ment to advance its suits upon the court calendar in prejudice of other 
litigants. A remedy would be to create a special court of appeal at 
Washington to try customs cases. The present law allows payment of 
interest, in all cases where judgment is obtained against the United’ 
States, from the date of protest or of filing a perfected claim. This 
seems to be correct, as no good reason can be given why the Govern¬ 
ment should have the possession of the money of its citizens without 
paying for its use. 

7. We are not sufficiently familiar with the business at New York to 
be able to specify all the articles imported there upon which the full 
duty has not been collected, but among the principal ones are silks, 
kid gloves, embroideries, laces, linens, crockeries, and woollen goods 
paying compound duties. 

8. We are of the opinion that duties have not been fully collected 
upon some kinds of Chinese and Japanese goods at San Francisco, 
owing, in large part, to the lack of correct information on the part of 
appraisers. 

The language of those countries not being understood, and the in¬ 
formation^ be obtained from trade-circulars meagre, appraisers are 
often obliged to guess the foreign market value of many articles, such 
as bronzes, vases, curios, manufactured silk goods, and the like. While 
there is no evidence of the guilty knowledge of appraisers, there is 
reason for belief that they have, either through indolence or timidity, 
often accepted the invoice value as the dutiable value rather than test 
the question of undervaluation. 

* 9. We are of opinion that false dutiable values have been returned 
by appraisers at some of the leading ports, especially of consigned 
goods at the port of New York, where appraisers appear to have delib¬ 
erately refused to consider apparently conclusive evidence furnished 
by consular officers and special agents abroad, as to undervaluation ot 
articles mentioned in answer to the seventh interrogatory. 


420 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


10. There has been, and is now, much doubt, not only in the minds 
of appraisers, but among customs officers generally, respecting the du¬ 
tiable value of merchandise coverings, growing out of the several con¬ 
structions given to section 7 of the law of March ,3, 1883. 

11. We cannot make a ‘ i safe average estimate” of percentages of 
loss by means of undervaluations for any given period. 

12. As between the examiner, assistant appraiser, and appraiser, we 
believe that the latter is responsible for a false return of value. It 
would seem to be the duty of an appriser to know, either from samples 
before him or by an examination of the goods, what he is approving 
when returning an invoice. The only exception would probably be 
at the port of New York. 

13. We have no knowledge that consular officers connive at the pre¬ 
sentation of false invoices. 

14. We have no means at hand or knowledge in our possession to 
show that “false values have habitually and systematically been re¬ 
ported to the several collectors,” or that the failure to collect the full 
amount of duty “has come of dishonesty,” and accompanied by a 
guilty knowledge on the part of the Treasury or customs officials, by 
means of a corruption fund or otherwise. Some appraisers seem to 
have misconceived the nature of their duties and to have acted as if 
called upon to stand between the importer and the so-called extortion¬ 
ate demands of the Government. But to charge, in the absence of direct 
testimony, that such action arose from corrupt motives would be un¬ 
warranted. 

15. False valuations will likely be practised in the future, as they 
have been in the past, whenever the opportunity offers. Any regula¬ 
tion upon the subject that does not include the careful scrutiny of 
business and inquiry as to the integrity and capability of officials must 
prove a failure. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific duty would greatly tend, 
we believe, to an honest collection of the revenue. Such an act would 
withdraw the chief element of fraud in appraisements—that of the 
importer’s statement—leaving the dutiable quantity to be determined 
solely by the customs officers. We believe that specific rates can be 
applied to all textile fabrics, and whilst they might sometimes work 
apparent hardship, we think these would in the main be less than are 
now experienced from the unequal application of an ad valorem law. 

17. While the repeal in 1874 of the law with respect to the payment 
of moieties has undoubtedly proven injurious to the revenue, we can¬ 
not observe the connection such repeal has had upon the action of ap¬ 
praisers, they not being officers included in the distribution of moieties. 

The modification of the law respecting the seizure of any “business 
book, invoice, or paper” has proven detrimental to the proper enforce¬ 
ment of the revenue laws, and the enactment of section 16, act of 
June 22, 1874, requiring the question of intent to be submitted to the 
jury as a distinct proposition, has made conviction for fraud almost an 
impossibility. We believe this opinion is generally, if not universally, 
entertained by all officers of customs. 

18. It would not, in our judgment, be at all practicable for consular 
officers, and indeed would be a physical impossibility, to personally 
examine merchandise to be exported from their consular jurisdictions 
to the United States. Numerous reasons could be stated in support of 
this position in addition to the reason that the influence tending tq 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


421 


bribery and the making of false reports would likely prove more potent 
abroad than at home. We are not advised as to “what fees are now 
exacted on each shipment” by consuls for certifying invoices. 

19. We do not believe that courts can be clothed with any more 
power than they now possess in the trial of customs cases. A special 
court for the trial of all revenue cases would, in our opinion, greatly 
expedite the settlement of cases under the present system of levying 
duties, but such a court would not be required were duties made specific 
instead of ad valorem. 

20. The duty upon imported wool has been subject to frequent leg¬ 
islative changes, as shown bv the following acts: June 30, 1864; March 
3, 1865: July 26, 1866: July 14, 1870; March 2,1867; March 3, 1883. 

21. We do not find that the practice of paying money to inspectors 
for facilitating the landing of passengers’ baggage has prevailed to any 
extent at the port at San Francisco. It undoubtedly exists at some 
of the Atlantic ports, notably at New York. The only remedy we 
could suggest would be an active supervision of the business by the 
responsible superior officers and the vigorous prosecution of offenders. 

22. The evidence at hand tends to show that the present duty of $10 
per pound upon prepared smoking-opium cannot be collected, and has 
greatly stimulated the activity of smugglers. The reduction of the 
duty 50 per cent, would increase the revenues materially from that 
drug, and correspondingly decrease its illicit introduction. 

23. We cannot say as to whether the revenue has been properly col¬ 
lected at other Atlantic ports than New York. 

24. The chief reason why persons have not been punished for mak¬ 
ing “false returns or reports to the collectors” appears to have been 
the lack of evidence to convict, as the law devolves the onus of proof 
of positive intent to defraud, as a separate issue, upon the Government. 

Very respectfully, 

J. F. EVANS, 

O. L. SPAULDING, 

Special Agents. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 26. 

NORRIS WINSLOW—Appointed Special Employ^ December 20, 1882. 

GEO. B. CHURCH—Appointed Inspector of Customs May 28, 1885. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Ogdensburg , October 3, 1885. 

Sir : As directed by Department letter of the 8th instant, (G. W. M.,) 
to submit answers to certain inquiries contained in circular enclosed, 
e^en date therewith, and to visit such ports on the northern frontier as 
may be deemed necessary; also, to give attention to the general con¬ 
duct of the customs business at the ports we might visit, we have the 

h °Demrtmentletter of the 16th instant (L. G. M.) directs that “exclu¬ 
sive and immediate attention be given the inquiries contained in said 
circular. ’ > We have, therefore, confined our observations to the propo¬ 
sitions therein referred to. 



422 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


First inquiry .—“Keeping in mind the distinction between rates of 
duty and dutiable values, what evidence is there, if any, that the tor- 
mer have not within the last few years been levied and collected as the 
law prescribes? ” 

There is no doubt but that, during the period named, serious losses 
have occurred to the revenue by reason of erroneous classification of 
merchandise at the various ports on the northern frontier. We are of 
the opinion that this has not been so much the result of dishonesty or 
favoritism on the part of officials as from ignorance or neglect, and that 
it has been easier to follow precedent than to investigate the subject 
properly. 

A remedy to this would be to have frequent visits to the various 
ports by competent and experienced specials, who should make a care¬ 
ful comparison with the classification of merchandise at the ports they 
may visit, with a view to a uniform practice, so far as may be con¬ 
sistent with the law and regulations and the locality and circumstances. 

Second inquiry .—“Is there satisfactory evidence (and, if so, what is 
it) that on articles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates, 
without reference to values, the full amount of duty prescribed by 
Congress has not been collected?” 

There is no reason to doubt but there has been gross negligence on 
the part of officials whose duty it is to ascertain the quantity of goods 
subject to specific duty, as called for by the certified invoice, as it is 
much easier to certify to the correctness of the invoice than to verify 
it by actual correct measurement or weight. 

At the port of House’s Point there has formerly passed large quan¬ 
tities of hay, oats, and barley, where the invoice was certified as cor¬ 
rect as to quantity and value, without weighing or any verification of 
the invoice. 

At the port of Morristown, during the months of March, April, and 
May of the present year, there was received a large quantity of po¬ 
tatoes, which were invoiced at about four hundred bushels per car. 
These were received at the invoiced quantity, and certified as correct 
by the officers. 

About the last of the shipments it was discovered that each car con¬ 
tained sixty to one hundred bushels in excess of the quantity invoiced, 
the revenue being defrauded of a large sum of money by the neglect of 
the officers of the port to properly discharge their duties. September 
19 we found, at the said port of Morristown, certified invoices of eleven 
car-loads of lumber, shipped from Brockville, Ontario, to Kearns & 
Marshall, at Morristown. Three of said cars were received at said port 
September 3, two September 8, and six September 15. All of these had 
been delivered to the importer, quite a portion of the lot sold and de¬ 
livered, and all of the lot, with the exception of three car lots, past 
identification. Ko inspection of any kind had been made by the officers; 
no entry, or report, or no duties collected. 

During the years-1883 and 1884, about 700 tons of flax were entered 
for consumption at the ports of Buffalo and Suspension Bridge as tow, 
and paid duty as tow, at $10 per ton, which should have been entered 
as flax and paid duty at $20 per ton. It will be seen that a loss of 
$7,000 occurred to the revenue, purely by the negligence of the ap¬ 
praisers at said ports. 

Third inquiry .—“In what manner, and by what tests, are the invoiced 
measurements of textile fabrics verified in the usual course of custom¬ 
house business?” 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


423 


By weighing and measuring. Importations of this character are very 
small on this, the northern frontier; in fact Rochester and Buffalo are 
the only ports where any considerable quantities of textile fabrics are 
received. Such are in immediate-transportation bond from Atlantic 
ports. 

Fourth inquiry .—“ What evidence is there, if any, of collusion between 
the persons making entry of several packages of similar goods on one 
invoice and the entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the appraiser 
for examination a bogus or false package as a fair sample of one in 
every ten 1 ?” 

We have failed to find any positive evidence relative to this inquiry. 

Fifth inquiry .—“What evidence is there, if any, of false, or incom¬ 
petent, or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves?” 

During the navigation, season of 1884, the Rathburn Company of 
Deseronto, Ontario, consigned to their house at Oswego, N. Y., per 
barge “Reliance,” (said barge being owned and controlled by the Rath- 
burn Company,) twenty-four cargoes of lumber. The average amount of 
each cargo was 192,908 feet, board measure. 

At intervals during the season, as near as might be to alternate trips, 
said Rathburn Company sold to Messrs. Barnes & Co., box-shook man¬ 
ufacturers, at Oswego, N. Y., and delivered the same by said barge 
“Reliance,” seventeen cargoes of lumber, the cargoes averaging 201,024 
feet, board measure, about 8,100 feet per cargo more when delivering 
lumber sold than when delivering cargoes of like kinds of stock to their 
own house. The Hon. A. C. Mattoon, the inspector in charge of the 
port during the time referred to, informed us that the cargoes delivered 
to Barnes & Co. were no larger than those delivered to their own house; 
that he was unable to prevent the fraud, as he did not have in his force 
of inspectors a sufficient number of competent measurers. Inspector 
Mattoon has had thirty or more years’ experience in the carrying trade 
on the lakes, and is thoroughly conversant with the carrying capacity 
of nearly every craft entering said port. 

As a further answer to this proposition, we respectfully refer to cases 
cited above in answer to second inquiry. 

Sixth inquiry .—“In respect to rates of duty and differences between 
importers and collectors growing out of decisions by the latter and the 
Treasury which have resulted in suits, does the existing law need 
amendment? How many such collectors’ suits are now pending in 
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore? If they can be classi¬ 
fied and the legal question at issue identified, how many suits are there 
in each classification, and how long has each untried suit been at issue 
and ready for trial? Cannot a plan be devised by the Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral, the Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorneys, and the judges 
by which these suits can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits, 
as they come up, be speedily put at issue and tried? Does the existing 
law in respect to the payment of interest as a part of the damages and 
and costs in ‘collectors’ suits’ need amendment? Is there a necessity 
for a new tribunal to try judicially questions growing out of writs of ex¬ 
ternal or internal taxation levied by the executive when tax-payers 
are dissatisfied, or can the existing judicial system be made sufficient if 
it be worked efficiently?” 

We are unable to furnish the information called for in this inquiry, 
as the scope of our observations was confined by the Department in¬ 
structions to the frontier ports, while the inquiry relates to the ports of 
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. 


424 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Seventh inquiry. —“Specify the class of articles, if any there be, on 
which the recent investigations or the existing facts now susceptible of 
proof conclusively show that the Treasury Department has, during re¬ 
cent years, failed to levy and collect in Yew York the entire and full 
amount of duty that the law prescribed. Is the evidence of failure of 
a character to be controverted successfully ? And, if so, how, and why V 7 

Same reply as to the sixth inquiry. 

Eighth inquiry. —“How has the failure come about? Has it come of 
the ignorance, or of the indolence, or of the dishonesty of Treasury 
officials? Is there any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge 
of the failure, or a conspiracy to promote it, among the higher class of 
Treasury or custom-house officials?’ 7 

Same reply as to the sixth and seventh inquiries: 

Ninth inquiry. —“If there be conclusive or satisfactory evidence that 
the appraiser (not the general appraiser) has reported to the collector 
false dutiable values, then (1) how long has the falsehood been in opera¬ 
tion, (2) on what class of articles, (3) from what places, (4) and were 
the articles shipped by the makers or purchasers, and (5) has the same 
general condition of things existed in the larger ports? If the proof 
of the false returns of dutiable values made by the local appraiser de¬ 
pends on the statements made by special agents of the Treasury or 
consular agents, what evidence is there to corroborate the latter as 
against the official action of the appraising department? 77 

Same reply as to the sixth, seventh, and eighth inquiries. 

Tenth inquiry. —“Is there now or has there recently been confusion or 
doubt or conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s department respecting 
any of the elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare the du¬ 
tiable value, and, if so, what? Is not the place and time and the stand¬ 
ard to be applied already defined by the statutes in the opinion of the 
examiners, deputy appraisers, and appraisers? 77 

Same reply as to sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth inquiries. 

Eleventh inquiry. —“Can a safe average estimate be now made of the 
percentage of such undervaluation by the appraisers in any year or se¬ 
ries of years, and the articles or invoices be identified? 77 

Same reply as to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth inquiries. 

Twelfth inquiry. —“ As between the examiner, deputy appraiser, and 
appraiser, which is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual 
course of business, for a false return of value to the collector? What is 
the salary of such officer? Is the appraiser much else, ordinarily and 
in fact, than one who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed 
and reported to him by the examiners and deputy appraisers? 77 

In answer to the last paragraph of this inquiry, we beg to state: It 
has been for years, and is now, the practice to delegate the duties of an 
appraiser to an inspector or deputy collector, and in many instances in¬ 
competent persons are intrusted with this important duty. It is not an 
infrequent occurrence to find at some of the ports several of the inspect¬ 
ors are charged with and perform this duty. As a consequence, the 
service is inadequately performed, shrewd importers take advantage of 
such appraisers, and a loss to the revenue is the result. For five years 
previous to the year 1883, at the port of Oswego, Y. Y., there had'been 
practically no appraiser, or officer designated by the collector to per¬ 
form the duties of appraiser. The records of the office show that dur¬ 
ing said period there had been no advance of value from the invoiced 
price in a single instance. An examination of the impost book by one 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 425 


familiar with dutiable values would be convincive that large amounts of 
money have been lost to the Government, owing to the neglect of the 
officer to correctly appraise imported merchandise. 

Thirteenth inquiry .—“Is there satisfactory evidence that any Govern¬ 
ment officials in the consular department or elsefvhere have assisted or 
consented to, or connived at, the presentation to the appraisers of such 
false evidence of foreign values'? If so, what officers, when, and how?” 

We do not find evidence that officials in the consular department 
have aided in procuring false evidence of value. At the same time, it 
cannot be denied that reforms are needed in the consular service in 
the Dominion of Canada. The compensation of many of the consuls 
and consular agents consists of fees, and, in order to increase the amount 
of such compensation, fees are divided with railroad and forwarding 
agents, and invoices often, left, signed in blank, with such parties, and, 
at times, with shippers. They are at all times so fearful that they will 
lose trade, and when a shipper presents himself for an invoice, the 
agent is so anxious to secure the fees, both for certifying the invoice 
and an extra fee for making it out, (clerical work,) at the same time 
anxious to keep his customer’s trade , that he is only too glad to certify 
to any value the shipper may suggest, however undervalued the invoice 
might be. No word or caution or instruction is given, for fear the 
shipper wall take his next invoice to some other agent. During the 
years 1883 and 1884, Mr. Winslow, of this commission, secured the 
duties upon a large number of mares that had been imported by dealers, 
free, for breeding purposes, and then put them to labor upon horse 
railroads and other like uses. Many of these importers, when con¬ 
fronted, have given as an excuse that they were led to do it by the 
consuls. The incentive for the consul to do this was the extra fee. 
For instance, the dealer applies at the consul’s office for an invoice of 
several horses. The consul at once sees a chance for an extra fee, and 
inquires if some portion of the animals are not mares. If the answer 
is in the affirmative, he at once suggests that the mares could be passed 
free, for breeding. The result is the revenue is defrauded of the lawful 
duties and the agent benefited the amount of the fees for the extra cer¬ 
tificate, which, by his shrewdness, he has found a market for. 

Large numbers of mares were found upon recent investigation to have 
been entered by the Detroit Street Eailway Company, and passed free 
for breeding purposes, at the port of Detroit, Mich., when the fact 
was they were imported for labor on said railway, and were so used. 
The officers at said port could but have known the business of the im¬ 
porter, and that the animals were dutiable, and that duties should have 
been imposed. 

Within the past month shipments of lambs by the car-load from 
Canada to the port of Morristown, N. Y., have been passed without 
inspection in any form, no attempt being made to even count them. 
This has been the practice at this port for several years. Often several 
car-loads of sheep and lambs at one shipment have been passed without 
counting or inspection. 

Fourteenth inquiry .—“If under the previous administration of the 
Treasury false values have been habitually and systematically reported 
to the several collectors, and if the tariff la^v has not been faithfully 
executed, and if the full amount of duty has not been collected, can it 
fairly be said the failure has come of dishonesty and been accompanied 
by guilty knowledge on the part of Treasury or customs officials j and, 


426 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


if so, of whom? If money has been paid to American officials to get 
false reports of dutiable values, who has furnished and paid it? By 
what means and agency, and where, has such corruption fund been 
raised and disbursed?” 

The several cases cited above we feel clearly demonstrate that false 
values are frequent and that the tariff laws have not been faithfully ex¬ 
ecuted. We are inclined to the belief, however, that it is not so much 
the result of dishonesty as indolence and incapacity, coupled with a 
desire to please on the part of the officers, and secure influence to en¬ 
able them to keep their places. It is well known by persons familiar 
with the service that it is a common occurrence, where an officer is firm 
and just with the Government and the importer, that he is openly threat¬ 
ened Avith the loss of his position. This has been carried to such an 
extent that many times officers are deterred from a faithful discharge 
of their duty, and it is often the case that the Department takes notice, 
to the detriment of the officer, of complaints of parties whose only griev¬ 
ances are, in fact, that they have not been allowed to pursue irregular 
practices. 

Fifteenth inquiry. —“If the false valuations have come of bribery or 
venality, what reason is there to think that similar corrupt and A r enal 
influences are not noAv brought to bear, or that they will not be success¬ 
ful in the future as in the past?” It is next to impossible to remove 
the temptation from officers referred to in this inquiry. Our observa¬ 
tions have convinced us that cases of bribery or venality are very rare. 
The irregularities which we haA r e referred to herein have been more 
the result of negligence and incompetency than otherwise. 

Sixteenth inquiry .—“Would a change from ad valorem to specific rates 
be a benefit to the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to bribery, 
provided the existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the future; and 
could specific rates be applied to all textile fabrics?” 

There is no doubt but specific duty, so far as it can be applied, is the 
simpler and most convenient method of assessing duty. 

As to textile fabrics, it would seem impracticable to apply specific 
duty to this class of merchandise, as it could only be based upon value. 

Seventeenth inquiry. —“Have the false reports by the appraisers been 
increased by the repeal, in 1874, of the ‘moiety law 7 and by the cus¬ 
toms legislation of that date modifying the existing law, and especially 
modifying that of 1863 respecting seizure of books and papers? 77 

There seems to be no difference of opinion among those whose duty 
has brought them in contact with the operation of the act of June 22, 
1874. While this act was passed as a reform measure for the protection 
of the revenue, had it been enacted for the purpose of enabling dis¬ 
honest people to evade the tariff laws, it could not have better accom¬ 
plished that object. 

To prove, as this act requires on the part of the Government, the 
“intent to defraud 77 by persons accused of smuggling, in order to con¬ 
vict, is very difficult, to say the least. The fear of punishment being 
removed, as a consequence dishonest practices are more frequent and 
frauds upon the revenue largely increased. 

Eighteenth inquiry.— u Would it be practicable in the large American 
consular districts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American 
consular agents, no matter how numerous and alert, to personally ex¬ 
amine articles to be shipped from thence to American ports, and to 
verify the correctness of invoiced values ? In which consular districts 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. 


427 


can American consular officers safely and surely ascertain and report 
the true invoiced values of every shipment ? 

“ Is it likely that foreign governments in which such American con¬ 
sular officers are stationed would abstain from complaints to this Gov¬ 
ernment if American consuls made vexatious delays in examining values 
and certifying invoices ? What fees are now exacted on each shipment 
in London and in England by our consuls for certifying invoices, even 
of small articles and of little value?” 

We are unable to procure on the frontier the necessary data to properly 
reply to this inquiry. 

Nineteenth inquiry. —“Under the law as it now is, the rates of duty 
levied by a collector can be supervised and revised by the Secretary of 
the Treasury, and finally by the Federal judicial power, but, according 
to the analogies of State taxing laws, neither the Treasury Department, 
nor the President, nor the judicial power can interfere with, or revise, 
or set aside the decision of the appraising department respecting duti¬ 
able values if the forms of law have been complied with. Would it be 
safe or useful to the revenues, and just to importers that the executive 
or the judicial powers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the 
ascertainment of the dutiable value, which is to be the basis on which 
the collector is to levy ad valorem rates?” 

The question of value is one of fact. It would seem that the apprais¬ 
ers are the proper persons to investigate, take evidence, and determine 
the true dutiable value of imported merchandise. 

Twentieth inquiry. —“The existing rate of duty on wool is a combina¬ 
tion of an ad valorem and a specific rate. I desire to have prepared and 
presented to me a very careful and accurate analysis of the history of 
the several rates of duty on wool since 1860, and of the working of the 
complicated rates on wool that are now in force.” 

We find that substantially all the wool imported from Canada on the 
northern frontier is wool of the second class. 

We give below the rates of duty assessed and collected since 1870 at 
the port of Ogdensburg, which we think will represent the practice of 
all the frontier ports: 

1870: 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1871: 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1872 : 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

1872 : 10 cents per pound and 9 per cent, ad valorem. 

1873: lOy 8 ^ cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

1874 : IOj^j cents per pound and 9 per cent, ad valorem. 

1875: 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

1875: 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1876: 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

1877 : 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

1878 : 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1879: 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1880: 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1881: 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1882: 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem. 

1883 : 10 cents per pound. 

1884: 10 cents per pound. 

1885: 10 cents per pound. 

The reply to this inquiry is of necessity incomplete, from the fact that 
wool is not imported into the United States from Canada to any great 


428 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

extent, except wool of the second class. We understand that the reply 
to the inquiry should he confined to transactions, and have confined our 
observations to such. 

Twenty-first inquiry. —“Is it believed that at the larger Atlantic ports 
the practice generally prevails, or prevail at all, of the payment of 
money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors of baggage, either 
to prevent or facilitate or hasten an examination of luggage to ascer¬ 
tain whether or not it contains dutiable articles; and if such a practice 
exists as the law condemns and forbids, can it be prevented, and how? 7 ’ 
We are inclined to think that the instructions recently given by the 
honorable Secretary of the Treasury to the district attorney of New 
York, if diligently and faithfully carried out, will prevent future prac¬ 
tices of this nature. 

Twenty-second inquiry. —“Does the evidence tend to show that, in re¬ 
spect to the articles on which the Treasury has failed to collect the 
whole duty prescribed by the law, the rate has been carried by Con¬ 
gress beyond and above the line which the* Government can surely pro¬ 
tect, and into a region where smugglers and dishonest shippers will be 
very powerful in evading the law ?' 7 

We have failed to find any evidence that would lead us to the opinion 
that the rate of duty has been carried by Congress to a point where 
smugglers are powerful in evading the law. The repeal of the 1L moiety 
law 77 and the prompt prosecution of offenders will reduce smuggling 
and undervaluation to the minimum. 

Twenty-third inquiry. —“Has what has been true of the failure of the 
Treasury Department to enforce the revenue law in New York been gen¬ 
erally true, and for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic ports ? 77 

This inquiry refers solely to the Atlantic ports. We are unable to 
furnish or properly prepare an answer. 

Twenty-fourth inquiry. —“If false returns or reports to the collectors 
of dutiable values have been made during a considerable time past, why 
have not the persons dr officials concerned therein been complained of 
arrested, indicted, and punished?” 

The cases of this kind that have come under our observations have 
not, in our opinion, been so much the result of dishonesty as from neg¬ 
ligence and incompetency. 

Very respectfully, 

N. WINSLOW, 

Special JEmployk. 

GEO. B. CHUBCH, 

Inspector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 429 


No. 27. 

WM. II. WILLIAMS—Appointed Special Agent June 21, 1881. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Cincinnati , Ohio, October 20, 1885. 

Sir : I liave the honor to submit the following report in reply to De¬ 
partment letter of August 27, 1885, submitting twenty-four inquiries 
relating to the administration of custom-house affairs: 

1. I know of none. 

2. None that I am aware of. 

3. So far as the work of the appraisers in the tenth and thirteenth 
special agency districts have come under my observation, I would say 
by actual count or measurement. 

4. I have no personal knowledge of any such transactions. 

5. I know of none. 

6. This question seems to be intended for the officers at the large sea¬ 
board ports; however, I am of the opinion that if the tariff law was so 
amended as to more clearly specify the classification of many articles, it 
would prevent much controversy and litigation between customs officers 
and importers. It is the alleged obscurity of the tariff act in regard to 
what is intended as the true rate of duty on many articles that leads to 
an honest diversity of opinion. Take, for instance, glycerine. It is a 
difficult question to determine where crude leaves off and where refined 
begins. 

(2.) I am of the opinion that there should be a special tribunal to try 
judicially questions and controversies arising under our customs laws. 
Disputed questions would be quickly decided, and the monthly publi¬ 
cations of the same, for the information of customs officers, would tend 
to uniformity of practice in the- assessment and collection of duties. 

Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, refer to the large sea board 
ports, and do not come under my immediate observation ; but, if we 
are to take the testimony of honest and reliable importers in the inte¬ 
rior, there can be no question but what there has been a failure on the 
part of customs officers at New York to levy and collect the entire and 
full amount of duty prescribed by law. 

Take, for instance, the firm of Marshall Field & Co., of Chicago, The 
John Shillito Co., of Cincinnati. Their facilities for the purchase and 
importation of merchandise are equal to any merchant in the United 
States. Their agents are in the principal markets of the world, and 
their integrity and financial standing are acknowledged as among the 
very best, yet these men tell us that they cannot import certain lines 
of goods and sell in competition with New York agents of foreign man¬ 
ufactories. These large dry-goods firms are run upon strictly business 
principles, and they know to a farthing what goods cost laid down 
at their stores. The slightest variation in foreign markets is cabled to 
them at once; in fact, every favorable condition of trade that exists 
with any merchant in this country exists with them, and yet they can¬ 
not sell, except at a loss, in competition with these New York houses. 
Travelling salesmen enter these stores and boast of their ability to 
evade the full payment of duties. An investigation of their prices, 
based upon known actual charges, such as freight, commissions, duties, 
&c., and the actual market value in the foreign market, substantiates 
their claim, and it also discloses the fact that the goods are offered for 


430 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


a little less than actual cost of honest importation, and without any 
legitimate profit to the importer. xAmong the articles that come under 
my observation are linens, linoleums, oil-cloths, thread, buttons, cor¬ 
sets, &c. I find that honest importers are loth to give information 
against these irregularities for two reasons: 

First, that their trade demands these goods, and they are compelled 
to buy of these foreign agents in order to successfully compete with 
their rivals. 

Second, that it brings a firm into disrepute and affects their trade to 
be known as an informer. It would seem that the oft-repeated remark 
made by the “ drummers” and agents of foreign houses, that “ they did 
not owe tribute to the United States Government, ” had so firmly ground 
itself into the avenues of trade that the sensibilities, even of our honest 
importers, had become dulled as to their duty as good citizens. How¬ 
ever, I believe a system can be devised whereby the Department could 
be put in possession of this information without detriment to the in¬ 
former, and with great value to the Government. 

16. The objection to specific rates is often urged that it discriminates 
in favor of the wealthy, and the better class of goods are passed at the 
lower rate of duty; for example, a horse worth five hundred dollars 
pays no more than one worth one hundred. So of different kinds of 
live stock; but I am of the opinion that this objection can be overcome 
by classification. 

A change from ad valorem to specific rates in all cases where prac¬ 
ticable would, in my judgment, prevent fraud and simplify the col¬ 
lection of import duties, and I believe the existing amount of duty 
could be levied and collected on nearly all articles of merchandise. In 
the case of fine laces, silks, satins, &c., which become very much more 
valuable in proportion to their fineness and lightness, it might be nec¬ 
essary to use a combination of rates similar to that on wool at the 
present time. It is an admitted fact that in many of the cheaper grades 
of textile fabrics, our manufactures are able to defy competition and 
stand alone. I firmly believe, with the exceptions noted, that specific 
duties on textile fabrics, based on an intelligent classification, keeping in 
view the average duties now collected, with such additions or reductions 
as past experience may suggest, are not only desirable but practicable. 

17. I am not able to state in regard to increase of false reports by the 
appraisers since the repeal of the moiety act of 1874, but there can be 
no question but what very grave abuses grow out of the enforcement 
of customs laws under this act, so much so that a universal demand 
went out for its repeal. Subsequent legislation, undoubtedly, went too 
far in the opposite direction. By the act of June 22, 1874, section 12 
and 16, whereby the Government is compelled to prove an “intent to 
defraud” under the rulings of the courts, renders conviction very 
doubtful, to say the least, and customs officers have often felt it their 
duty to recommend a compromise for a money consideration, owing to 
the uncertainty of conviction under this act. I am of the opinion that 
it would be much better for the Government and for the best interest 
of honest importers, if that portion of the act requiring id roof of “intent 
to commit a fraud” were repealed. 

I doubt the advisability of the re-enacting of the law of 1863 or any 
other law that will permit the seizure of private books and papers. 
Such a law would be liable to abuse by overzealous officers, and might 
result in great injustice to an importer. I believe there would be but 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 431 

few cases, if any. but what an intelligent officer could procure his evi¬ 
dence without resorting to seizure of private books and papers. 

18. I do no not believe it practicable for consuls to verity invoices as 
suggested in this question. It would cause vexatious delays and serious 
complaint on the part of importers, and no doubt would lead to protest 
on the part of foreign governments in ports where our consular agents 
were stationed. 

I do not know what fees are charged by our foreign consular agents. 

19. The liability of an appraiser to err in judgment is as great, if not 
greater, than any other customs officer. Many close questions arise 
which largely affect the interests of the Government or the importer. 
Many of the appraisers in the smaller ports are not experts, nor men of 
experience in the valuation of many kinds of merchandise. In cases 
where doubt arises, it is the practice of many of these officers to decide 
in favor of the Government, and leave the importer to protest and 
appeal. There can be no question but what the importer should have 
the right to appeal to the Department and to the courts, and especially 
would this be the case if a court of jurisdiction is to be established for 
the trial of cases arising under our customs laws. 

Dutiable values are not always known nor easily ascertained by the 
appraiser at the time of appraisement, and I am of the opinion that no 
injustice would be done the importer or the revenues of the Govern¬ 
ment by the acts of an incompetent officer being subject to the revision 
of the Department and the courts. At the same, time I would keep in 
view that any change to be made in the present law should not be to 
invite litigation, but to collect the revenues of the Government with as 
little friction and embarrassment to honest importers as can be done 
with safety to the revenue. 

20. Since the receipt of Departments letter, I have endeavored, at 
every favorable opportunity, to get the opinion of prominent wool-grow¬ 
ers as to the-effect of the present tariff on that industry. Within the 
limits of my district is situated the principal wool-growing territory 
east of the Mississippi river, and I must say I find a great diversity of 
opinion, but all agree upon this statement, that wool cannot be produced, 
except at a loss to the grower under the prices paid, since the passage 
of the tariff act of 1883; also, that a specific rate, regulated by the price, 
as under the present law, is very much to be preferred to a return to the 
compound rates of 1867. I am of the opinion that the low price of wool 
at the present time is not wholly to be attributed to the rate of duty as 
placed in the tariff of 1883, but that the disturbed condition of the trade, 
caused by the change in the tariff, not only of wool but of woollen goods, 
has had much to do with it. This is shown by an improvement in prices 
of this year over that of last, and as the relative value of these articles 
become" fixed, it will, no doubt, still further add to the market price per 
pound. 

It is claimed that the same classification has been in practice for over 
twenty years, and that changes have taken place in the breeding of sheep 
not only in our own but in foreign countries, and that a reclassification 
under the present rates should be made in justice to the wool-grower. I 
have no doubt this is true. In conversation with the largest wool -grower 
in Ohio, (Mr. Harpster, of Wyandotte County,) he expressed the opinion 
that the rates on wool valued at 30 cents or less per pound, in classes 
one and two, should be 12 instead of 10 cents. He also expressed the 
opinion that under the present rate of duty on the coarser grades of 


432 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


wool, (class three,) it was impossible for the American sheep-raiser to 
breed with success what is known as a mutton-sheep for the markets in 
our large cities, because the grower must depend in part on the wool 
produced for his profit, and the small protection aiforded by the tariff, 
with the light fleeces of this kind of sheep, would not admit of this 
kind of industry. 

I also addressed a letter to the Hon. Columbus Delano, a gentleman 
who has the reputation of being the best informed of any in our State 
on this subject. I have not received his answer up to the time of writ¬ 
ing this report. As soon as it comes to hand I will forward it to the 
Department. 

21. It is currently reported, and believed by most people, and pas¬ 
sengers from abroad relate their experience of how they fix the customs 
officers on arrival of ship at New York by the payment to the inspector 
of a certain sum of money to have their baggage passed without criti¬ 
cal examination, or only a small amount of dutiable articles reported 
to collector for payment of duty. The arrest and punishment of pas¬ 
sengers engaged in these practices, as well as the officer, would no doubt 
lessen this evil. 

22. I think not. The strong competition in trade is no doubt the 
chief cause of the dishonest practices to evade the customs laws. 

Merchants and dealers are anxious to undersell their competitors, 
and they study the most feasible plan for that purpose; consequently 
we have undervaluation, bribery, smuggling, and other sharp prac¬ 
tices of dishonest merchants, and will have so long as there is a duty 
to be collected. 

23. Not to so great an extent. 

24. Not in my province to answer. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. H. WILLIAMS, 

Special Agent. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 28. 

Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 

Cincinnati , Ohio, November 1, 1885. 

Sir : I would respectfully submit the following report, with enclosure, 
as supplementary to my report of October 20, 1885, in reply to question 
No. 20 of Department letter of August 27, 1885: 

I submitted several questions to Mr. Delano, of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, 
in regard to the tariff on wool, and its relations to the wool-grower. I 
v consider him one of the best informed gentlemen upon this subject in 
this country, and I quote his reply: 

“I enclose with this note a printed copy of a statement which I made 
before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, 
February 20, 1884, under the caption, <Protective duty on wool.’ 
You will find a history of the several tariffs or duties on wool from the 
commencement of our National Government to the date of my statement. 

“This will answer the first part of your inquiry as well as I am able 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 433 


to answer. This ‘history of the several rates of duty on wool’ was 
made from the records of legislation on the subject, and it is correct, as 
I believe. You will find in the statement some information of value in 
regard to the condition of sheep-husbandry and wool-growing in the 
United States prior to and at the date of the wool and woollens tariff 
of March 2, 1S07, and if you carefully pursue the subject, you will ob¬ 
serve how this industry prospered and increased under the influence of 
this act, and how it has been injured in its prosperity by the act of 
March 3, 1883. 

“In regard to the final clause of your inquiry, which refers to the 
working of the complicated rates on wool that are now in force, I have 
to say I think, as a rule, specific duties are preferable to ad valorem, 
and I am clearly of opinion that specific duties are advisable on wool, 
provided they are adequate in amount, and are expressed in clear and 
unequivocal terms; but this leads me to say that the classification of 
wools is an absolute necessity in any tariff act for their protection, and 
I am sure that no better classification has been, or is likely to be, made 
than that which was adopted in the act of 1867, and which was pre¬ 
served in the act of 1883. 

“ The varieties and grades produced and consumed by our people 
'were happily and accurately described and embraced in these acts. If 
any future legislation is had touching wools, it is important that this 
classification be not modified. It is equally important that the duties 
imposed by the act of 1867, or a full equivalent therefor , be restored , but 
this can be done by stopping all ad valorem and by increasing specific du¬ 
ties to equal the amounts thus dropped. Such a course will render 
evasions and frauds less easy, and thus facilitate an honest and fair 
compliance with law by importers. 

“Nothing short of a substantial restoration of the act of 1867 will 
meet the just demand of a great industry, which in 1883 produced 
three hundred and twenty millions (320,000,000) of pounds, worth on 
the eastern markets one hundred and forty-four millions of dollars, 
($144,000,000,) but which, under the influence of the act of 1883, is not 
worth over ninety-six millions of dollars, ($96,000,000.) 

‘ k I have one more word to add. O ur carpet-wools have never been ade¬ 
quately protected, and this important fact I wish to emphasize, for there 
is nothing but folly in our economic policy that drives out of this coun¬ 
try the production of carpet-wools, when we have such vast regions 
which nature seems to have provided for their especial production. 

“ Respectfully, 

“C. DELANO.” 

It will be remembered that in my former report I stated that Mr. 
Harpster, of Ohio, the largest wool-grower in the State, claimed that a 
reclassification of duties on wool was necessary, in his opinion, but Mr. 
Delano thinks differently. I am inclined to the opinion that Mr. Delano 
is the best informed on the question, it having been the subject of care¬ 
ful study by him for many years. * 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. H. WILLIAMS, 

Special Agent. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. C. 

28 A 


434 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


PORT OF BALTIMORE. 


No. 29. 

EDWIN H. WEBSTER—Appointed Collector February 17, 1882. 

Custom-House, Baltimore, Md., 

Collector's Office , October 6, 1885. 

Sir : Your circular letter dated August 27, 1885, was duly received 
at this office, but as I was absent from the city I could not personally 
reply to the queries therein presented, and embrace the first favorable 
opportunity to do so. 

I notice by a careful consideration of your communication that some of 
the questions are more applicable to the port of New York than to Balti¬ 
more, several of them referring specifically to that port. I will endeavor 
to answer the questions, however, as well as the information attainable 
will allow, so far as this port is concerned, as I have no knowledge of 
the state of affairs at New York. 

To the first and second questions, I answer none. 

To the third, I would state that invoiced measurements of textile fab¬ 
rics are verified in the appraiser’s office by the examiners, under the 
supervision of the appraisers, by measuring, weighing, and examining, 
under the glasses furnished by the Government, sample portions of such 
importations. 

To the fourth and fifth, I answer none. 

To the sixth, I report that the following suits are now pending in the 
United States circuit court at Baltimore, and, I am informed by the 
United States district attorney, are now ready for trial. These suits are 
all brought by importers against the Government: 

Two suits on classification of duty on bottles containing natural 
mineral water and on malt-extracts, under act of June 3, 1874. 

Eight suits on classification of iron ore, under act of March 3, 1883. 

Twelve suits on subject of charges, under act of March 3, 1883. 

I do not think that there should be any amendmnnt to the law in 
respect to the payment of interest, except that the rate of interest 
might be reduced to correspond to the rate paid by the Government on 
its bonds. 

There is no necessity for a new tribunal to try questions mentioned 
in this interrogatory, so far as this port is concerned. 

To the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, I have no know¬ 
ledge. 

In answer to the twelfth, I would state that there are at this port two 
local appraisers, and no deputy appraiser. 

As between the examiner and the appraisers, I consider the first- 
named officer the one “primarily” responsible for all returns affecting 
the dutiable value of goods. When he cannot determine on the value, or 
has any doubt whatever as to the correct assessment or classification of 
merchandise, he reports the fact to the appraisers, who then make a 
personal examination and report the result to the collector, and in all 
cases in which goods are advanced in value over the invoiced price the 
appraisers are consulted. 



REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 435 


At this port the appraisers in many cases give personal attention to 
determining the classification and valuation of merchandise. 

The salary of the appraisers is $3,000 each per annum, and of exam¬ 
iners, $1,600 and $1,800 per annum. 

To the thirteenth, none. 

To the fourteenth and fifteenth, I have no knowledge. 

To the sixteenth. A change from ad valorem to specific duties would 
diminish the tendency to bribery by removing the opportunity there¬ 
for, and wherever practicable such change should be made; but in tex¬ 
tile fabrics it would be impracticable to apply specific duties in many 
cases, or, if applied, the effect would be to diminish, and even prohibit, 
the importation of low-priced goods and increase importations of high- 
priced goods. At the same time the existing revenue would be de¬ 
creased. 

To the seventeenth. In my judgment, the re-enactment of the 4 ‘ moiety 
law” is not desirable. It led in many cases to acts of injustice upon 
innocent persons, and the seizure of books and papers under the act of 
1863 was liable to the same objection. 

To the eighteenth. I presume a sufficient number of consular agents 
might be appointed in such places as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., to 
personally examine articles to be shipped to the United States, but it 
would be attended with great expense and labor, and would occasion 
great vexation and complaint on the part of foreign merchants, manu¬ 
facturers, and shippers. I consider such a scheme impracticable. The 
fee allowed by law to be charged by consuls is $2.50. I find, upon ex¬ 
amination of a number of invoices from London and England, that the 
amount added varies slightly ; in some cases the charge is 10 shillings 
6 pence, in others 10 shillings 4 pence, besides in some cases an addi¬ 
tional charge of 6 shillings is added for affidavit. 

To the nineteenth. I do not think a change of the law would be ad¬ 
visable. 

To the twentieth. I have no suggestion to make, except so far as I 
have stated in my reply to question number sixteen. 

To the twenty-first. At this port the habit does not prevail of paying 
money to officers by passengers. 

To the twenty-second. I have no knowledge of the Government fail¬ 
ing to collect duties at this port. 

To the twenty-third and twenty-fourth. I have no knowledge of any 
failure to enforce the revenue laws, or of any false returns or reports 
relating to dutiable values having been made, as far as this port is con¬ 
cerned. 

I am, very respectfully, 

EDWIN H. WEBSTER, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


436 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

No. 30. 

A. STERLING—Appointed United States District Attorney July 29, 1869. 

United States Attorney’s Office, 

Baltimore , September 18, 1885. 

Sir : I submit the following replies to the interrogatories numbered 
1 to 24, inclusive, in your circular, in which you say that in order that 
you may decide how much and what portion, if any, of the record of 
recent investigations of custom-house affairs shall be sent to Congress 
in your annual report, you desire careful and official replies to the fol¬ 
lowing inquiries: 

To the first inquiry I have no information except as to the customs 
district of Baltimore. From a long official acquaintance with that dis¬ 
trict, I have no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied and 
collected as the law prescribes, but I am satisfied, from a good deal of 
opportunity to know, that they have been so levied and collected. 

To the second inquiry I answer in the negative. Solely as to this 
district. 

To the third inquiry I have to say that this question is so clearly 
applicable to the detail of the appraisers’ office, and will be so fully set 
forth by them to the Secretary or the collectors, that it need not be here 
answered. 

To the fourth inquiry there is no evidence. I feel sure that no fraud 
suggested by this inquiry has been committed here within the past 
sixteen years. 

To the fifth inquiry I answer, there is no evidence here. I never 
heard of any false or inadequate weighing on the wharves. 

In regard to the sixth interrogatory, I think the existing law does 
need amendment. The following cases against collectors are now pend¬ 
ing in the circuit court for this district, with date of suit brought: 

April 12, 1881—W. D. Marvel vs. John L. Thomas. 

September 10, 1881—Same. 

December 21, 1881—Same. 

May 2, 1882—Same. 

The question involved in these cases is, whether certain ore is dutia¬ 
ble as metallic ore not otherwise provided for, at 10 per cent, or 20 
per cent. 

January 5, 1883—Soyre vs. E. H. Webster. Mineral water, whether 
material or artificial. 

January 31, 1883—Eisner vs. E. H. Webster. As to market value of 
malt-extract. 

January 17, 1884—Rogge & Koche vs. E. H. Webster. Question of 
classification. 

January 17, 1884—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Question as to pack¬ 
ages being free or dutiable. 

January 17,1884- vs. E. H. Webster. Claim of abatement for 

damage to cargo of fruit. 

February 20, 1884—Moritz, &c., vs. E. H. Webster. As to packages, 
dutiable or free. 

June 9, 1884—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Same question. 

June 9, 1884—Fried vs. E. H. Webster. Same question. 

June 9, 1884—Prior, &c., vs. E. H. Webster. Question as to classifi¬ 
cation. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 437 


June 9, 1884—Rogge & Koche vs. E. H. Webster. Question of classi¬ 
fication. 

July 31, 1884—Moritz, &c., vs. E. H. Webster. Packages, whether 
free or dutiable. 

July 31, 1884—Cator, &c., vs. E. H. Webster. Same question. 

November 12, 1884—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Package, dutiable 
or free. 

April 2, 1885—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Same question. 

August 15, 1885—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Same question. 

January 7, 1885—Marvel vs. E. H. Webster. Same question as to 
iron ores as above. 

May 15, 1885—Marvel vs. Webster. Same question as to iron ores as 
above. 

These suits, with two exceptions, are in regard to controversies well 
known to the Department, and the suits here have not been tried be¬ 
cause similar suits in' New York were expected to be tried and appeals 
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it seemed better 
and more economical to the United States not to multiply trials unless 
trial here was directed by the Department. There is no difficulty here 
in getting such suits speedily tried, and I cannot answer the general 
question. I think there is no necessity for a new tribunal for such 
question; I think there is a need for special juries to try them. 

To the seventh inquiry. I have no means of answering this inquiry. 

To the eighth inquiry. I have no means of answering this inquiry. 

To the ninth inquiry. No evidence here. 

To the tenth. No means of answering this question. 

To the eleventh. No means of answering this question. 

To the twelfth. I have no information for me to answer this question 
satisfactorily. 

To the thirteenth. I have no evidence or knowledge so as to answer 
this question. 

To the fourteenth. I have no information so as to answer this question. 

To the fifteenth. I must answer as in my reply to the fourteenth. 

To the sixteenth. I think a change as to specific rates would be a 
benefit to the revenue and help to diminish the tendency to bribery, and 
that such rates might be applied to many classes of goods, but I do not 
see *how they could be applied with justice to all textile fabrics, the 
values differ so enormously. 

To the seventeenth. In my opinion, the legislation mentioned in this 
inquiry has had a direct tendency to increase successful fraud. The 
moieties to Government officers were, perhaps, obnoxious enough to be 
repealed, but so many frauds may be carried out which even vigilance 
may not detect that rewards to informers ought to be given in order to 
cause distrust among participants in frauds and induce the possessors of 
guilty secrets to reveal them. 

I think the provisions requiring in cases of forfeiture trials, that a 
separate issue shall be submitted to the jury as to whether there was a 
specific intent to defraud the revenue, puts a greater burden on the 
prosecution in such cases than the circumstances allow. 

The opportunity of showing the absence of fraud is so clearly in the 
possession of every honest importer that to try such cases and require 
the prosecution to prove guilt, as in ordinary criminal cases, is less than 
justice to the Government, and is not founded on sound principle. 

Eighteen. I have no information to answer this interrogatory. 


438 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


I answer the nineteenth question in the negative, as to the judicial 
power. I think the executive department may have greater jurisdic¬ 
tion, and I think that as little as possible in regard to dutiable values 
should be allowed by the courts. 

Twentieth. I have no means of answering this question. 

Twenty-first. I have heard that this practice has, to some extent, 
existed in New York, where such an immense amount of luggage is in¬ 
troduced, but I have never heard that it prevailed anywhere else. 

The only way I see to prevent it is by such supervision of a higher 
grade of inspectors or superiors over the inspectors of baggage, whose 
vigilance might deter and prevent such practice, and the trial and 
punishment of every inspector who may be proven to be guilty, as also, 
undoubtedly, by the increasing introduction of civil-service reform 
among the officers and the banishing of political influences and rewards. 

Twenty-third. I answer this question in the negative, from all the in¬ 
formation I possess. 

Twenty-fourth. As far as I know, which is only as to this district, 
very few false reports have been made. I think, in all cases where the 
evidence has shown such reports, the proper prosecutions have been had. 

Very respectfully, 

A. STIRLING, Jr., 

United States Attorney . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 31. 

WILLIAM R. WILMER—Appointed Naval Officer February 17, 1882. 

Port of Baltimore, Mb., Naval Office, 

September 5, 1885. 

Sir : In response to the inquiries of the circular dated August 27, 
ultimo, a copy of which, marked “strictly confidential,” was addressed 
to me as naval officer of this port, I respectfully submit the following 
statements, seriatim: * 

1. I have no evidence that “the rates of duty,” as distinguished 
“from dutiable values,” have not at this port, “within the last few 
years, been levied and collected as the law prescribed.” 

2. I have no evidence of any kind that the duties referred to in para¬ 
graph 2 have not, in full amount, been collected as prescribed by 
Congress. 

3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified thus: 
The appraiser or examiner first compares the figures given in the 
invoice with those marked on a small tag or ticket attached to the goods; 
secondly, the verification is occasionally made by actual measurement; 
but thirdly, in general, while the width is actually measured, the length 
is ascertained by counting the folds in a sufficient number of pieces. 
This last method is regarded sufficiently accurate in the case of all 
regularly manufactured goods. 

4. In reply to this inquiry, it affords me pleasure to say that during 
my incumbency of this office no such transaction as collusion between 
importers and deputy collectors or entry clerks has come to my knowl- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


439 


edge; nor do I believe that such collusion has been perpetrated. The 
chief importers making entry at this port are men of the best mercantile 
reputation; and the integrity of our entry clerks has not been, in my 
knowledge, ever impeached. 

5. In reply to the fifth interrogatory, I regret to say that the evi¬ 
dence of incompetency (not fraud) in the weighing department are of 
frequent occurrence. This incompetency exists either in the actual 
process of weighing or in the making out the returns from the weigh¬ 
er’s dock-book, possibly in both. All the returns of the weigher, as 
well as those of the appraiser, are carefully scrutinized in the liquidat¬ 
ing department of this office, and when the least appearance of discrep¬ 
ancy is presented in an undue difference between the quantity entered 
and that returned, attention is called to it, and the return, when erro¬ 
neous, is corrected and indorsed “ Amended by permission of the sur¬ 
veyor.” So frequent do these errors occur that our liquidating depart¬ 
ment has learned to be very cautious in adjusting entries on returns of 
weight, and yet, with all their caution, in some instances the error has 
escaped their notice, but afterwards discovered by the chief weigher or 
by the importer. 

6. I learn there are on the docket of the United States court of this 
city some twenty or more suits pending against collectors of this port, of 
which four are against the late collector, John L. Thomas, and the resi¬ 
due against the present collector, Edwin TI. Webster; that seven of 
these cases involve the question of rate of duty on iron ore ; two cases 
refer to classification of merchandise ; and the remaining eleven cases have 
reference to the question of u the charges” for “cartons,” “making up,” 
&c., as a part of dutiable value. None of these suits have been tried , but 
all are awaiting the issue of similar suits before the courts in New 
York, or the final issue of such as may be taken by appeal to the Su¬ 
preme Court. Without attempting to point out the way in which, un¬ 
der the present judicial system, this undesirable state of things could be 
remedied, its detriment to the revenue is manifest, in that, in case of 
adverse decisions, the amount of duty exacted in excess, with interest, 
must be refunded. 

Such facts as these, together with evils incident to other departments 
of the whole present system, evidently demand at least an effort at im¬ 
provement. This, I think, could be largely effected by— 

First. A simplification of the terms of the tariff in stating classifica¬ 
tion and rates of duty. 

Second. In the appointment of appraisers, examiners, weighers, entry 
clerks, and other officers of ascertained capacity and integrity. 

Third. In the creation of a special tribunal, a tariff appeal court, the 
judges and attorneys of which to be men not only learned in law but 
also expert in revenue laws and all tariff questions; and also, if possible, 
men of sound practical knowledge in merchandise, manufactures, &c. 

10. While I have not learned that any conflict of opinion exists in 
the appraiser’s department relative to the elements to be ascertained in 
order to fix and declare dutiable values, yet, as between the appraiser’s 
department and several of our large importers here, a considerable 
diversity of views prevails relative to the force and import of Treasury 
circular of July 2, ultimo, as expounding the operation of the present 
tariff in determining the true dutiable value of certain classes of mer¬ 
chandise, whether or not that dutiable value shall include the invoice 
charges for boxes, cartons, making up, <&c. The merchants generally 


440 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


exclude these charges from their entries. The appraisers add them, and 
the additional duty is paid under protest and suit entered for its recov¬ 
ery. An immediate and definite decision of the question is very de¬ 
sirable. 

12. While examiners and deputies are directly responsible to their 
chief, yet the appraiser himself must be held chiefly responsible to the 
collector for the accuracy of all reports of values, rates, or quantities to 
which he certifies. In some instances, no doubt, the appraiser must 
depend entirely upon his subordinates; but at this port the amount of 
business does not prevent the appraiser from making a personal verifi¬ 
cation of all reports on dutiable values. 

There are two local appraisers in the custom-house at this port, at 
salaries of $3,000 each per annum; and, since the recent reduction of 
the force, there are five examiners, salaries of three at $1,800 each, and 
the remaining two at $1,600 each. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates, in every admissible 
case, would undoubtedly diminish the temptation to make false and 
fraudulent valuation, besides tending to simplify the tariff, an improve¬ 
ment which the present system urgently needs. 

While specific rates could be applied to all textile fabrics, yet, in 
grading the rate, some reference should be had to valuation; otherwise, 
there would be no practical distinction between the coarser and finer 
and more costly fabrics of the same general class. 

18. As our consuls and consular agents abroad at present certify to 
the market value of the currency in which the foreign invoices are made 
out, I cannot see what valid objection there could be to their verifying 
also the market value of the merchandise exported. Of course this would 
occasion some delay, but that delay need not be vexatious, and the bene¬ 
ficial results accomplished would more than compensate for any practi¬ 
cal inconvenience. 

19. I am clearly of the opinion that when the methods for ascertaining 
and determining the elements of the revenue, values, rates, quantities, 
&c., have been once declared, no department and no officer of the Gov¬ 
ernment should have the authority to interfere with them. This is 
manifestly demanded by justice to the importer and by the best inter¬ 
ests of the revenue. 

21. While I have knowledge of money being offered by arriving pas¬ 
sengers at this port to customs officers to influence them in the discharge 
of their official duty, the offer was indignantly rejected, and I have no 
reason to believe any such money has been received. 

22. While Congress may not be able to enact revenue laws that un¬ 
scrupulous men of capacity may not violate and circumvent with impu¬ 
nity, yet there is a principle of sound policy to be observed in all such 
legislation. u As far as possible prevent the crime that cannot always be 
certainly detected and adequately punished. Destroy the gain of def rauding 
the revenue .” This may be done in part by the substitution of specific 
for ad valorem rates, but mainly by such a judicious revision of the whole 
tariff as shall reduce it to a point consistent with a safe and conserva¬ 
tive revenue, but which shall offer no sufficient temptation to evade its 
provisions. 

With reference to paragraph 20, the statistics extending over a period 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 441 


of twenty-five years irill require considerable time to collect and arrange, 
but it shall be done at the earliest possible period. 

Upon the topics named in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 
and 24, I have no information. 

Very respectfully, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


WM. R. WILMER, 

Naval Officer . 


Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Naval Office , September 9, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to the statement made in my communication of Sep¬ 
tember 5, 1885, in reply to your circular of August 27, 1885, designated 
as point 2, under subject 6, I desire to say in explanation that the re¬ 
mark relative to the qualification of certain officers in the custom-house 
was of general application , and not as referring especially to the present 
incumbents of this port. 

Very respectfully, 

WM. R. WILMER, 

Naval Officer . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Naval Office , October 7, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to topic “20” of your circular of date August 27, 
1885, relating to the subject of “wool” imported at this port, (the circu¬ 
lar was marked “strictly confidential,” and to which I replied Septem¬ 
ber 5, 1885,) I have the honor to state: 

1. That prior to the year 1870, the records of this custom-house are 
not in such form as to afford convenient access to the desired information, 
which could be obtained only by an actual examination of every page of 
each volume of the records for ten years. The time allotted for this re¬ 
port, with my limited clerical force, would not permit such examina¬ 
tion of the period named. And this is the less to be regretted on this 
occasion as the period from 1860 to 1870 covered the time of our late 
civil war, during which, and for a considerable time after, all indus¬ 
tries were in an abnormal condition. 

2. That from 1870 to the present time our records on all subjects are 
full, complete, and accurate, and regularly indexed throughout. From 
these records I learn that the importations of wool at this port were, in 
weight (pounds) and in value, (dollars,) as stated in the accompanying 
table; 


442 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Importations of Wool at Port of Baltimore, Md. 


Year. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Average. 

1870 . 

Pounds. 

242,756 
1,109 
30,017 
25,684 
12,793 
28,519 
13,681 
39,442 
8,666 

Dollars. 

25,763 

108 

4,877 

3,893 

1,624 

3,966 

2,257 

4,945 

816 

10 cents per pound. 

1871. 

1872. 

1873. 

1874. 


1876. 

1877. 

1878.-. 

1879. 


83,693 
49,874 

15,512 
5,915 

1881. 

1882. 

1883. 

110,480 

16,399 

1884. .. 

1885. 



Total. 



646,714 

86,075 



3. That under the tariff prior to the existing act of 1883 the duty on 
wool was a combination of a specific and an ad valorem rate, determined 
by the relation of the cost in the foreign market to the standard of 32 
cents per pound for classes first and second , and that of 12 cents per 
pound for class third, to wit: For wool costing 32 cents or less, 10 cents per 
pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; costing over 32 cents per pound— 
in 1870, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem; in 1872, and 
subsequently, 12 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; for washed 
wool, double those rates; and for scoured wool, three times the rates. 
Wools of class three , costing 12 cents or less, the rate was simply specific , 
3 cents per pound; costing over 12 cents, 6 cents per pound; and the 
latter, if scoured , 18 cents per pound. 

4. Under the existing tariff, the duty on wool is simply specific , and 
the rates are 10 cents, 12 cents, 21 cents, and 5 cents, respectively; but 
while former ad valorem element no longer exists, the standard of value 
in the foreign market has been reduced from 32 cents to 30 cents per 
pound in classes first and second. 

5. In addition to the above, derived from our records, I learn from 
other sources that in 1870 the product of wool in Maryland was 435,213 
pounds, and in 1880, 850,084 pounds—an increase of nearly 100 per cent. 

In connection with this it should be stated that, at any given price, 
American wool is superior to that of any other country, with the single 
exception of Australia, which produces the finest wool in the world. 

6. In Maryland there are only fourteen woollen factories, and only 
one of any considerable extent. It is situated near this city. This 
factory, since the beginning of the present year, has purchased 1,200,000 
pounds of domestic wool, and imported none. In 1880 they paid 30 cents 
per pound for best qualities, but now the price is 21 cents per pound. 

7. In the whole United States, in 1860, the product of wool was 
60,264,913 pounds; in 1870,100,102,387 pounds; and in 1880, 240,681,751 
pounds. 

This marvelous development is due, no doubt, originally to the foster¬ 
ing influence of the tariff, but wow wool-growing is established as a perma¬ 
nent necessity for the proper cultivation of the soil. 

A material reduction of the present duty on wool would, no doubt, 
for a time disturb the home market, yet no interest requires the rate of 
duty to be advanced, 




























REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 443 


The ratio of increase in this particular industry is but one among many 
others that assure us that the vast area of the United States, with its 
exhaustless capabilities of resources, will ere long be occupied by a 
mightier people than has elsewhere ever existed, and that the day is not 
distant when the United States will be able both to feed and clothe the 
world. 

Very respectfully, 

WM. E. WILMEB, 

Naval Officer. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 32. 

GEORGE M. McCOMAS—Appointed Deputy Collector November 1, 1870. 

Custom-House, Baltimore, Md., . 

Collector's Office , September 10, 1885. 

Sir : Your communications of the 9th and 30th ultimo were duly re¬ 
ceived, and should have been responded to sooner, but, owing to 
inflamed eyes and the absence of the collector, I have only been able 
to attend to my official duties, and that contrary to the advice of my 
physician, and their present sensitiveness w T ill compel me to make my 
reply more brief than I would otherwise have done. 

Many of the questions submitted have almost exclusive reference to 
the port of New York, to which I feel incompetent to make any intelli¬ 
gent replies, and many other to undervaluations, which I am quite sure 
have not been the case at this port. I hereto attach replies to each para¬ 
graph. Though made under such unfavorable circumstances, I hope 
they may, to some extent, contribute to the laudable object you have in 
view: 

1. I have no knowledge that, within the last few years or at any other 
time, any duties have not been levied or collected as the law prescribed 
or the Treasury Department has directed. 

2. I have no satisfactory evidence that, on articles which the law says 
shall pay purely specific rates without reference to values, the full 
amount of duties prescribed by Congress have not been collected. 

3. These duties are performed by appraisers and examiners by actual 
measurement and tests furnished them by the Treasury Department. 

4. I have never seen the least evidence of collusion with entry 
clerks or deputy collectors and importers to send to the appraisers a 
bogus or false package as a fair sample of one in ten, and I feel assured 
that if any such proposition were made to any entry clerk or deputy 
collector at this port, the entire importation would be sent to the ap¬ 
praisers. 

5. I have no evidence of false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing 
or measuring on the wharves, neither have I any suspicion of such be¬ 
ing the case. 

6. These legal questions, I presume, will be fully replied to by the 
collector and district attorney. I have never heard complaints here by 
importers of delay in settlement of suits, but have of the heavy expenses 
incurred in order to enter suits. The law, as it is now interpreted, is 
but just to the creditor respecting interest, 



444 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


7. This has reference to practices in New York, with which I am not 
sufficiently informed to express an opinion. 

8. The same as 7. 

9. I do not consider in any way applicable to this port. 

10. There is now, and has been, confusion, doubt, and conflict of 
opinion, not only in the appraiser’s department, but in the Treasury De¬ 
partment and courts, respecting elements to be ascertained in order to 
fix and declare the dutiable values, such as so-called charges, outer cov¬ 
erings, cartons, &c. The place and time are sufficiently defined by the 
statutes. 

11. I do not think any safe average can be made of the percentage 
of undervaluation or of overvaluation of any year or series of years. I 
believe at this port there has been an average of overvaluations. There 
is no infallible standard of value by which to be guided. 

12. As between the examiners and the appraisers for false returns of 
values to the collector, both would be equally responsible were the ap¬ 
praisers to accept the report of the examiners. At this port the appraiser 
satisfies himself by personal examination if he has any doubt of the re¬ 
port made by the examiner. 

13. I do not know of any evidence of consular officials having assisted, 
consented to, or connived at false evidence of foreign value. 

14. I do not know of any false value, under this or any previous ad¬ 
ministration, being habitually returned to the collector, nor of any 
money being paid to American officials for any such purpose. 

15. I have no evidence that bribery has been used, under this or any 
other administration, to procure false valuation. 

16. It would certainly be preferable, if it be possible, to substitute 
specific for ad valorem duties, but do not believe it can be applied to 
textile fabrics, except in a tariff levied for revenue only. 

17. I have no data by which I can form an opinion. 

18. I think it would be impossible for consuls to personally examine 
articles to be shipped and verity correctness of values. The delays and 
annoyances, as well as questions of values between shippers and consuls, 
would render such impracticable. Two dollars and fifty cents is the 
legal fee for consuls certifying invoices, of large or small amounts. I 
find the charges on invoices made in various ways. Where separated 
from the charge for the declaration, the charge is mostly ten shillings 
and six pence, occasionally ten and four pence, I presume dependent 
on the rate of exchange, but the charge for declarations is frequently 
included and charged as consuls’ fees, in which cases it is generally from 
fifteen to sixteen shillings and six pence, dependent on copies of decla¬ 
rations. 

19. The present law is certainly very unfair to the importers, and 
should be so amended as to give them a right of appeal to some higher 
and independent tribunal. 

20. I presume this will be furnished by some one in the appraiser’s 
department, and if made by one of experience, and has been appointed 
as the law requires, will be of value. The condition of my sight at 
present will not justify the research required. 

21. The practice of giving inspectors fees for services in facilitating 
the examination of baggage does not prevail at this port. The inspect¬ 
ors know the law in such cases, and have been notified that it would be 
rigidly enforced; and it can be effectually remedied where it prevails 
by strictly enforcing the law, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 445 


22. As a general rule, the inducement to smuggle is of articles paying 
the highest rates of duty, but they are not always the most easily con¬ 
cealed and disposed of. I think the efforts at this port have been of 
that class of goods which are most readily concealed and sold without 
much regard to the rates of duty. 

23. I do not think there has been any failure to enforce the revenue 
laws at this port. The same reasons do not exist here and at other At¬ 
lantic ports as at New York. The volume of business is not so great; 
therefore there is not so much opportunity for designing persons to 
avail themselves of the rush of business. The importers in other cities 
are mostly American citizens, whereas in New York they are generally 
foreigners, and represent foreign manufacturers and merchants, who are 
not in sympathy with our laws and regulations; are in theory free¬ 
traders, and are located there solely for the purpose of making money 
for themselves and their foreign representatives. 

24. At this port I do not believe there has been any intentional false 
returns of values to the collector, and am sure if there had been they 
would have been complained of and arrested. 

Yours, most respectfully, 

GEO. M. McCOMAS, 
Deputy Collector of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 33. 


JOHN L. LINTHICUM—Appointed Clerk, Baltimore, May 12, 1873; Appraiser, 

December 31, 1874. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Appraiser’s Office , October 8, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular marked 
confidential, and regret that the duties of the office have been such as 
to prevent an earlier answer and the attention which the importance of 
the questions contained demands. I will endeavor to answer as best I 
can the questions, seriatim , as follows: 

1. I have no evidence that the rates of duty as prescribed by law 
have not been levied and collected. 

2. I have no evidence that the full amount of duties prescribed by 
Congress on merchandise paying purely specific rates has not been 
collected. 

3. Textile fabrics are usually put up by the manufacturer in pieces, 
with folds of a yard or metre in length, or rolled on boards. Each piece 
has a label or card attached giving the number of yards or metres con¬ 
tained, and corresponding with the invoice. The goods are opened 
and examined, and a sample taken of each quality and price; a piece 
is then unfolded and the length of the fold measured and the number 
of the folds counted, which gives the number of yards or metres con¬ 
tained. Where the goods are rolled on boards, a piece is unwrapped 
and measured by the yard or metre stick. A discrepancy between the 
quantity invoiced and the quantity found is very rare. 

4. I have no evidence whatever of any collusion between the entry 
clerk and the importers in the designation of packages for examination. 



446 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TftE USURY. 


Occasionally the appraiser finds it necessary, in order to make a proper 
examination of an invoice of goods, to make a requisition for additional 
packages where the entry clerk has omitted to designate a sufficient 
number, but this is a mistake that can easily occur, in consequence of 
the manner in which many invoices are made up, but I have never heard 
of any suspicion of irregularity in the matter. 

5. I have no evidence of any incompetent or false measuring or weigh¬ 
ing on the wharves. This is under the jurisdiction of the surveyor, 
and I have heard nothing to the contrary of its being correctly done. 

6. (1.) In regard to the differences between collectors and importers 
as to the classification of imported merchandise, I don’t see where the 
existing law could be amended with any advantage, except, perhaps, 
that the time now allowed to the importer in which to bring suit, if dis¬ 
satisfied with the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, might be 
reduced. I can see no good reason why the importer should not know 
as well in thirty days after notification of the decision of the Secretary 
of the Treasury whether he intends to enter suit or not as in ninety days, 
the time now allowed. 

(2.) As to the number of collectors’ suits now pending in Boston, New 
York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and their particular classification, 
I have no means of knowing, as the records of these suits are exclusively 
under the jurisdiction of the collectors of the several ports. 

(3.) I can see no good reason why a plan cannot be devised by which 
these suits can be more promptly disposed of. I think that the princi¬ 
pal cause of delay is on the part of the plaintiff; each importer is wait¬ 
ing for another to press his suit, knowing that he will incur certain 
expenses, even if successful, while others, whose suits involve the same 
issues, will get the same benefit from the decision without any expense. 
Another cause is the indifference on the part of district attorneys, in 
consenting to postponements and in not pressing the suits to trial. 

(4.) In regard to the question of interest as a part of the damages and 
costs in suits against collectors, where it is finally decided by the courts 
that the collector has demanded and received more money as duties 
than the law requires, I think it to be entirely equitable that the impor¬ 
ter should be allowed interest on the excess paid for the time that such 
excess has been in the possession of the Government. 

(5.) While having no exact information as to the amount of business 
before the United States courts, I think, however, that the existing 
judicial system is entirely adequate, if efficiently worked, to dispose of 
all cases involving the proper rate of duty, and that there is no necessity 
at present for the establishment of tribunals expressly to try these ques¬ 
tions. 

7. I have not seen a copy of the report of the investigations referred 
to, and have no evidence in the matter whatever except newspaper re¬ 
ports and the repeated assertions of importers here that they can buy 
in New York certain goods much cheaper than they can import them, 
particularly silks and cotton and worsted coat-linings. 

8. Having no information as to the facts elicited by the investigation 
referred to, it is impossible for me to give an opinion whether the fail¬ 
ure to collect the whole amount of duty prescribed by law was caused 
by the ignorance, indifference, or dishonesty of Government officials. 

9. I have no evidence whatever, and am therefore unable to give an 
answer to the questions embraced in this number. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 447 

10. For some time after the law of March 3, 1883, went into effect 
there was a great deal of confusion and diversity of opinion as to what 
extent section 7 of said act affected dutiable values, and, also, as to what 
elements were to be considered as embraced in the market value of the 
merchandise, but I know of no difference of opinion recently. The 
existing decisions of the Department clearly set forth that section 7 
does not in any manner affect the market value of merchandise, and 
that the market value is the value of the merchandise in the condition 
in which it is prepared for sale in the foreign market, and that the 
proper construction of section 7 is that it simply repeals pre-existing 
laws, which required to be added to the market value the value of the 
cases, boxes, packing, &c., which are necessary for the transportation 
of the merchandise, inland freight, commissions, and shipping charges. 

11. I cannot see how it would be possible now to make a reliable es¬ 
timate of such undervaluations for a specific time, unless samples of 
the different kinds and qualities of the merchandise undervalued could 
be produced, together with reliable proof of what were the real market 
values of the different kinds and qualities at the time of shipment to 
the United States. 

12. At the port of New York, in consequence of the vast number of 
importations, I have no doubt that the whole time of the appraiser is 
occupied in certifying to the collector the reports of values by the 
assistant appraisers on invoices. In such an event the assistant ap¬ 
praisers are primarily responsible for any false returns made, as it is 
their duty, as far as it is possible, to supervise the examiners while 
making examinations, to examine the invoices and note the different 
qualities and prices, and to see the goods corresponding to the different 
prices. The examiners are assistants to the assistant appraisers, and 
where it may be impossible for the assistant appraisers to see all the 
merchandise examined, it is the duty of the examiner, where there is 
the slightest doubt as to the correctness of the value or classification, to 
call the attention of the assistant appraiser and exhibit a sample of the 
merchandise for his decision. An ignorant, indolent, or dishonest ex¬ 
aminer can, in a great many instances, impose upon an assistant ap¬ 
praiser and cause incorrect reports of values to be made. At other 
ports, where there are no assistant appraisers, like the port of Baltimore, 
the appraisers are primarily responsible, the examiners are the assistants 
of the appraiser, and while at this port the appraisers personally super¬ 
intend the examinations and see nearly all of the goods examined, still 
there are many instances in which they are liable to be imposed upon 
by an ignorant, indolent, or dishonest examiner. The salary of assistant 
appraisers at the port of New York is $3,000 per annum, and I think 
that the salaries of examiners range from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. 
At the port of Baltimore the salary of appraiser is $3,000, and that of 
the examiners from $1,600 to $1,800 per annum. 

(2.) As stated in answer to the first part of this question, the busi¬ 
ness at the port of New York may be of such proportions as to prevent 
the appraiser from doing anything else but simply certifying the reports 
of the assistant appraisers, and I have no information as to the number 
of duties performed by the appraisers at the various ports. It may be 
possibly true that at "some other ports where there are assistant ap¬ 
praisers, the appraiser may do nothing more than to certify the reports 
of the assistant appraisers through sheer indifference, and not for 
want of time to supervise, in a measure, the examinations of the mer- 


448 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


chandise. As to the port of Baltimore, I can speak more thoroughly. 
The appraisers here not only report the values of the merchandise to 
the collector, but they superintend the examinations, and see almost 
all of the goods which are examined at the appraiser’s stores, and often, 
in the absence or sickness of an examiner, make the examination in his 
stead. All advances in values are made by the appraisers, and not by 
the examiners, and also all changes in the classification of merchandise, 
as you are doubtless aware that the classification by the collector on the 
invoice at the time of entry is, from the very nature of the case, only pre¬ 
liminary, and in a great many instances merely conjectural, for the reason 
that it is impossible, from the meagre descriptions and technical names on 
the invoice, to give the correct classifications, an actual examination of 
the goods being absolutely necessary for the purpose. The appraisers 
also answer all appeals from the importers to the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury on classification, which are always sent by the collector to the ap¬ 
praisers for an answer before they are transmitted to the Secretary of the 
Treasury. The appraisers also examine the goods on which an allowance 
for damage is claimed, either alone or in company with the examiner, 
who regularly examines the particular class of goods to which the dam¬ 
aged goods belong. If the goods damaged are textile fabrics, the ap¬ 
praiser and the examiner of textile fabrics make the examination; if 
earthenware, the appraiser and the examiner of earthenware, &c. In 
some cases, where the appraiser is prevented at the time by other duties, 
and the merchandise is of such a character that there is no difficulty in 
ascertaining the extent of the damage, the examiner is allowed to make 
the examination alone j but textile fabrics of all kinds, on which an 
allowance is claimed, are always seen by the appraiser. 

13. I know of nothing that would amount to satisfactory evidence of 

collusion on the part of United States consuls in the presentation of false 
values to the appraisers. In the early part of the year 1881, it was dis¬ 
covered that all invoices of marble from Carrara, Italy, were under¬ 
valued, the importers receiving private invoices with much higher 
values than those certified by the consul. In explanation of this fact, 
they asserted that the consul, Mr. - -, required the ship¬ 

pers to make up their invoices at these prices, and that he would not 
certify them unless they did so. It was also rumored at the time that 
the consul was interested in the marble business in Boston. Whether 
these statements were correct or not I do not know; however, the De¬ 
partment was informed about the matter, and some time afterwards a 
successor to Mr.-- was appointed. 

14. I have no evidence which would enable me to give a satisfactory 
answer to the question embraced in this paragraph. 

15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, it is reason¬ 
able to suppose that the same influences would produce "similar results 
in the future. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific duties would unquestionably 
do away with the motive for undervaluations, but would not affect the 
question of bribery. If false valuations have been caused by bribery 
those that give bribes would only turn their attention to another class 
of officials, namely, inspectors, weighers, gaugers, measurers, and others 
who certify to quantities. 

(2.) I cannot see how purely specific rates can be applied to textile 
fabrics with any degree of equity. In a few kinds of manufactures of 
cotton the number of threads to the square inch is a very good index of 





REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TRRASURY. 449 


the value, while in the greater portion it is entirely unreliable in giving 
any idea of the value. The same is true in regard to manufactures 
of flax, jute, and hemp. In some few manufactures of flax, such as shirt 
linens, the number of threads to the square inch will closely indicate 
the value; but on the greater portion of the manufactures of these ma¬ 
terials it would be no guide whatever. In manufactures of silk the 
difficulty in imposing specific rates will be still greater, owing to the 
wide range in the value of the yarns from which the fabrics are manu¬ 
factured. You will find yarns of Bourette silk valued as low as 40 cents 
per pound, while organzine silk will reach as high as $8 and $9 per 
pound, thus demonstrating the impracticability of imposing either 
pound or square-yard duty on silk manufactures. On manufactures of 
wool the imposition of purely specific duties would be likewise inequi¬ 
table in its discrimination against the coarser and cheaper manufact¬ 
ures and in favor of the finer and higher-priced. The present rates of 
duty, being only in part specific, discriminate against the cheaper 
fabrics, but not to the extent that purely specific rates would. I am 
unable to see how purely specific rates could be applied to any textile 
fabrics without discriminating in favor of the fine and high-priced man¬ 
ufactures. 

17. If the appraisers are honest and capable men, the repeal of the 
moiety act should not have affected their reports of values in any man¬ 
ner whatever, except so far as it may have operated to deprive them of 
information through others, who would have possibly divulged in the 
hope of reward. If they are dishonest men, and their reports of values 
have been false, either intentionally or through sheer indifference because 
they were deprived of the stimulus of reward in the rex^eal of the law, 
they would be entirely unsafe as Government officers, under any cir¬ 
cumstances, if the law was restored. I do not think, however, that there 
is any doubt that the general effect of the repeal has been* to deprive 
Government officials of valuable information through the medium of 
informers, and has to that extent contributed to the increase of under¬ 
valuations. But as the law was liable to be used by dishonest officials for 
blackmailing purposes, to the detriment occasionally of an honest im¬ 
porter, who, rather than have suspicion rest upon his house by an in¬ 
vestigation of his books, would pay a certain sum to the officials. I 
think its restoration to be a question of very doubtful expediency. 

18. It would be entirely impracticable, in my opinion, for the con¬ 
suls at London, Paris, Beriin, &c., to personally examine the merchan¬ 
dise shipped, and to certify the correctness of the values in some few 
articles wffiich are of a uniform quality, and which vary very little 
in value from time to time. They might be able to verify the values, 
but in textile fabrics it is very doubtful if one consul in ten would be 
able to tell the nature of the component material of the fabric, much 
less the value, winch is governed by the quantity and quality of the 
materials used and the mode of its manufacture. The only manner in 
which any degree of accuracy could be obtained would be the employ¬ 
ment of experts in each particular line of merchandise shipped, which 
would be simply transferring the appraising department from home to 
the various consulates abroad; and while it would not prevent false 
values from being returned, as the consul would still be liable to be 
deceived through either the dishonesty, ignorance, or indolence of those 
so employed, the chances for detection would be very largely diminished. 

29 a 


450 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


(2.) I am unable to name any consular districts where the consuls 
could safely and surely report the true values of every shipment. 

(3.) It is reasonable to suppose that foreign governments would make 
complaints in case of any unusual delay on the part of the consuls in 
certifying invoices. The consuls could be of very great assistance to 
the appraisers in determining values by sending weekly, or even monthly, 
reports and prices-current of the various merchandise shipped from their 
consulates to the United States, but, to the contrary of this, we do not 
receive at this port a single report, or even price-current, from France, 
and only two from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, viz., Man¬ 
chester and Newcastle; none from the German Empire; none from 
Austria, Italy, and Spain; one from Switzerland, viz., a report from 
St. Galle, of the charges for stitching embroideries. 

19. Upon a question of classification, which is one of law, it is proper 
that the courts should decide in case of appeal; but in regard to values, 
which is a question of fact, I think that it would be very unsafe to give 
the courts jurisdiction. The appraisers, in the first place, are supposed 
to be honest and capable men, and if not they should be, with a proper 
appreciation of their duties and of what the law requires; they should 
not advance values on mere suspicion, or simply for the purpose of being 
on the safe side in the event that the invoice values were shown to be 
incorrect; but wherever values are advanced the appraiser should have 
reasonable and just grounds for his action. In case the importer is dis¬ 
satisfied and appeals, the general appraiser and a competent and repu¬ 
table merchant hear the case upon its merits, before whom he has the 
right to appear, with witnesses, and present what other evidence he may 
have bearing upon the case. I consider these gentlemen vastly more 
competent to determine facts of this kind than the judge of a court, and 
that their decisions are more likely to be just to all parties than those of 
judges of couits, where technical rules of evidence prevail, or the verdicts 
of juries whose conclusions may possibly have been reached by the throw 
of dice. As the decision of the general and the merchant appraisers is 
final, unless fraud is shown, I think the present law might be amended 
so far as to give to the Secretary of the Treasury the power to order a re¬ 
hearing of the case in the event the importer, within a reasonable time, 
can show to his satisfaction that he has in his possession evidence of un¬ 
doubted value which he did not know of, or was unable to obtain at the 
time. 

Many of the importers have the impression that they ought to have 
the right to make selection of the person to act with the general ap¬ 
praiser. They say that the merchant appraiser is also a Government 
officer, because he is selected by the collector, and that, therefore, their 
rights are not represented at all. I regard this reasoning as fallacious, 
and would equally apply to judges of the courts, who are appointed by 
the President. The idea of the provision in the law for the merchant 
appraiser is that he represents the rights of the importer, and his mere 
selection by the collector does not in any sense constitute him a Govern¬ 
ment officer, but is a wise and proper provision in order to prevent the 
selection of an improper person. 

But in order to remove any objection in this direction, the law might 
be further amended by allowing the importer to select the merchant ap- 
paiser, provided he is a capable and reputable person, subject to the 
approval of the collector, and in the event of a disagreement between 
the general appraiser and the merchant appraiser in their decisions, the 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY 451 


collector to decide, as at present, which report to accept ; or, if deemed 
advisable, the number might be increased, and in addition to the gen¬ 
eral appraiser and the merchant appraiser as now appointed, allow the 
importer to select a proper person, subject to the approval of the col¬ 
lector, and in case of disagreement, if the general appraiser and one of 
the merchant appraisers constitute the majority, their report is to be 
accepted as the decision of the case, and in the event the two merchants 
constitute the majority, the collector to decide which report shall be 
accepted as the decision. 

20. To give a careful and accurate analysis of the history of the sev¬ 
eral rates of duty on wool and their practical working would require 
a great deal of time, as the investigation would include not only the 
changes and modifications in the several acts, but also the different 
views of the leading members of Congress on the subject who were 
chiefly instrumental in shaping the legislation. While the wording of 
this paragraph would indicate that a history of the legislation on the 
raw material only is required, I take it that the history and the prac¬ 
tical working of the various rates of duty on manufactures of wool are 
more particularly meant; and while I have not the time to go into the 
history of these various rates, I have compiled from the importations at 
this port for the last several months a statement of the various m nu- 
factures of wool and the rates of duty applicable to the various cl a ses, 
the amount of duty and its equivalent in per cent, ad valorem, wh s ich 
I think, will give the Department some information as to the practical, 
working of the different rates of duty. The statement is here appended. 


of the Various Manufactures of Wool , <&c. 


452 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE - TREASURY. 


•tnaiorBA 

8’8SSSSS$‘9* 

Amount of 
duty. 

$2,904 04 

690 32 

331 41 

350 56 

5,886 14 

715 52 

4,807 01 

4,760 62 

5,785 46 

5.242 80 

478 29 

500 30 

17,349 93 

1.243 03 

1,240 26 

233 09 

701 05 

91 83 

1,687 58 

497 14 

682 24 

Rate of duty. 

35 cts. and 40 per ct.. 
35 cts. and 40 per ct.. 
35 cts. and 35 per ct.. 
18 cts. and 35 per ct.. 
35 cts. and 40 per ct.. 
35 cts. and 40 per ct.. 
5 cts. and 35 per ct.. 
7 cts. and 40 per ct.. 
9 cts. and 40 per ct.. 

35 cts. and 40 per ct. 

40 cts. and 35 per ct.. 

35 cts. and 40 per ct.. 

45 cts. and 40 per ct.. 

35 cts. and 40 per ct.. 

30 cts. and 50 per ct.. 

45 cts. and 30 per ct.. 

45 cts. and 30 per ct.. 

45 cts. and 30 per ct.. 

30 cts. and 80 per ct.. 

25 cts. and 30 per ct.. 

20 cts. and 30 per ct.. 

40 per ct. 

Value. 

$45,063 33 
1,292 94 
396 64 
537 15 
10,058 95 
1,098 18 
7,246 90 
8,352 24 
7,395 29 
7,120 26 
849 98 
938 37 
23,161 95 

2,065 46 
2,233 93 
339 36 

1,185 85 

161 92 

2,669 84 

898 42 

1,122 12 

989 16 

Val ue per square yard 
and pound. 

mmtumi mum! 
!mu?i*l!!i i!******* 

isi&iti iiisKi 

Weight. 

Is ■* in* &* - iiiiii! 

Quantity. 

21,118 yds. 

13,320.20 metres.... 

550 % yds. 

884 yds. 

7,756 dozen. 

601 dozen. 

45,412 sq. yds. 

20,281% sq. yds./... 

31,418 sq. yds. 

23,312% sq. yds. 

ouo pieces. 

6,428 pieces. 

657 pieces. 

291% sq. yds. 

774 sq. yds. 

96 sq. yds. 

2,958% sq. yds. 

910% sq. yds. 

1,728 sq. yds. 

973% sq. yds. 

Description. 

Woollen cloths, 28 to 56 inches wide. 

Wool barege veiling, 14 to 22 inches wide. 

Wool cloths, under 80 cents per pound, 54 inches wide. 

Worsted cloths, under 60 cents per pound, 54 inches wide.. 

Wool knit gloves. 

Wool knit hose.... 

Dress-goods, coat-linings, &c., in part wool, under 20 cents. 
Dress-goods, coat-linings, &c., in part wool, over 20 cents.. 
All-wool dress-goods, &c., weighing less than 4 ounces... 
All-wool dress-goods, &c., weighing over 4 ounces. 

Wool snawis, as wearing-apparel. 

Wool costumes, not made up, wholly or in part. 

Women’s and children’s wool coats, cloaks, &c. 

Women’s and children’s wool coats, cloaks, &c., knit 

Dress-trimmings. 

Axminster carpets. 

Wilton carpets. 

Tournay carpets. 

Brussels carpets. 

Patent velvet carpets. 

Tapestry Brussels carpets. 

Patent mosaic carpets. 


lililliliimi 886S6666 




















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 453 


21. It is generally believed that this practice prevails at the port of 
New York. In fact, the acknowledgments of passengers themselves 
have been so frequent that I do not think that there is any doubt on the 
subject. I have not heard that it prevails at other ports, although it 
may. I do not think that there is any such practice at this port; at 
least I have never heard of it. Any Government officer detected in 
receiving either money or a present from a passenger should be dis¬ 
missed from the service immediately. 

22. I have no evidence as to what articles on which the Treasury has 
failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law, and am therefore 
unable to answer. 

23. I have no information which enables me to speak of the other 
ports. I know of no instance at this port in which the duty prescribed 
by law has not been collected. 

24. I am unable to answer for the want of information in the matter. 

N. B.—No. 18. I omitted to answer the latter clause of this question, 

in reference to the charge by the consuls for the certification of invoices. 
The usual charge is 15s., of which 4s. (yd. is the charge for the oath, which 
is taken before a commissioner, lezrving 10s. 6d. as the consults charge. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, &c., 

JNO. L. LINTHICUM, 

Appraiser. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 34. 

HENRY H. GOLDSBOROUGH—Appointed Appraiser January 19, 1875. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Appraiser’s Office , October 6, 1885. 

SIR: In reply to your circular of the 27th August, ultimo, pro¬ 
pounding to me numerous inquiries, I beg leave to state: 

1. That I believe the rates of duty, as distinct from dutiable values, 
have been levied and collected at this port as the law prescribes for the 
past ten years that I have been acting as an appraiser. • 

2. I have no knowledge or evidence that the full amount of duty 
prescribed by Congress on articles paying specific rates of duty, without 
reference to values, has not been collected at this or other ports. 

3. The invoiced measurement of textile fabrics, such as woollen 
cloths and similar goods, paying a compound duty, is usually verified 
by actual measurement and weight of the contents of cases sent to us 
for examination, and a comparison of the same with the quantities and 
weights stated on the invoice. 

In cases of cotton cloth paying according to the number of threads 
to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, they are tested by the 
square-inch glass provided for such purpose; and in women and children’s 
dress-goods, composed in part or wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of 
the alpaca, goat, or other animals, where a compound duty is applicable, 
the lineal yards are ascertained and reduced to square yards according 
to Heyl’s tables, and duties assessed according to the different characters 
and respective qualities of the goods, and written reports made to the 



454 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


collector of the port of their respective classifications under the tariff 
law. In these, as in all other cases, we are governed by the synoptical 
series of decisions issued monthly by the Treasury Department. 

4. I am not aware of any collusion between the persons making entry 
of goods and the entry clerk or deputy collector whereby any bogus or 
false packages are sent as fair samples of one in every ten. 

5. I have no knowledge of any false, incompetent, or inadequate 
weighing or measuring on the wharves. 

6. I do not know that the existing law in respect to differences of 
opinion between importers and collectors of the several ports of entry, 
resulting in suits at law, needs any amendment. I have no knowledge 
of the number of suits now pending in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, 
and Baltimore. The official record in each case will afford the best evi¬ 
dence of their respective classifications, the legal questions involved, the 
number and time of their institution, how long they have remained un¬ 
tried, and in what condition they are for trial. It is difficult to devise 
any plan for the prompt disposal of suits, as each suit must depend upon 
either written testimony, the personal attendance of witnesses, or the 
admissions of counsel and other causes, which generally gives ample 
opportunity for postponement and delay whenever desired by either 
side. If these can be remedied by the combined wisdom of the Attor¬ 
ney-General, the Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorneys and 
judges, it will be an improvement greater than any that has ever yet 
been made in the way of expediting the trial of litigated questions. I 
do not think the existing law in respect to the payment of interest as a 
part of the damages and costs in suits by or against collectors of ports 
needs any amendment. It is just and equitable in itself, and the party 
succeeding in his suit should be entitled to compensation by way of in¬ 
terest, as a part of his damages and costs. 

I do think there is a pressing and urgent necessity for the establish¬ 
ment at once and without delay by Congress of a new tribunal to try 
cases arising under our tariff laws, of classifications as well as of values. 
I am decidedly of the opinion that if a customs court should be created 
by the Congress of the United States at the four principal seaboard 
ports, say Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, that our 
customs service would be much improved and the mercantile com¬ 
munity greatly benefited. They should be required to sit daily from 9 
to 3 o’ clock, aitl give their exclusive attention to tariff questions. They 
should not be confined to the above localities, but be made, under the 
direction of the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, to serve within 
respective districts to be assigned them, and to decide all controverted 
tariff questions arising within their respective districts, furnishing the 
honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time, with written 
concurring and dissenting opinions in each and every case. 

I would invest this court with the same powers as the circuit court of 
the United States, to issue writs, processes, and subpoenas, and compel 
the attendance of witnesses, issue commission to take testimony, impose 
and administer oaths, compel the production of books or writings 
w hich contain evidence as to any matter pending before it, to issue at¬ 
tachments and executions, to enforce its judgments and decrees, and 
to punish by fine and imprisonment for contempt of its authority, and 
make rules and regulations for the transactions of its business. Such a 
court, created with full judicial powers, and properly organized with an 
experienced lawyer at its head, and two competent assistants, (both of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 455 


whom should be customs experts,) nominated and appointed by the 
President of the United States, by and with the approval of the Senate 
of the United States, would, in my judgment, relieve the mercantile 
community of much of the expense, annoyance, and delay they experi¬ 
ence under the present existing system in the prosecution of whafc they 
conceive to be their rights. I would repeal all laws in reference to the 
appointment of general appraisers. I would give to the importers the 
same right of appeal from the decisions of local appraisers to this cus¬ 
toms court as they now have to the general appraiser and the merchant * 
appraiser. With a tribunal so constituted, customs cases all over the 
country could be disposed of in ninety days from the commencement of 
proceedings, as well as in the four or five years that are usually con¬ 
sumed under the present system. The Government and the importers 
would then both be relieved of the innumerable protests and appeals 
now pending, and which do not reach a final decision until passed upon 
by the Supreme Court of the United States, or, if by an inferior court, 
until acquiesced in and accepted by the Treasury Department or the 
importers as a correct adjudication of the questions involved. 

7. I am unable to specify any articles upon which the officials at the 
port of New York have failed to levy and collect at said port the full 
amount of duty that the law prescribes. 

8. I have no knowledge of the inquiries made under the interrogato¬ 
ries in this number. 

9. I have no knowledge of either of the local appraisers at this port 
ever reporting to the collector false and dutiable values, or of the exist¬ 
ence of any such practice at any other ports. Our returns are not based 
upon statements of special agents. The reports of foreign consuls on 
values (although now seldom received) are generally accepted as prima 
facie evidence of values, unless other and better evidence is produced 
as to the correct foreign market value. 

10. There is not, nor has been at any time, any confusion, doubt, or 
conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s department at this port respecting 
the elements of dutiable value. The statutes on this subject are as full 
as to place, time, and standard as could be desired, except the seventh 
section of the act of March 3, 1883. This section, I think, could be 
amended so as to distinguish more clearly the outside covering neces¬ 
sary for transportation from those inside boxes and coverings which 
usually form a part of their market value. 

11. There being no undervaluations made at this port by the apprais¬ 
ers, no average estimate can be formed for any year or series of years. 

12. As between the examiner and local appraisers at this port, I 
would say that the examiner is primarily liable, as he first examines 
the cases sent to this office, opens and counts the contents, and then re¬ 
ports in writing to the local appraiser for his sanction and approval. In 
cases of doubt, the classifications and values are determined by the local 
appraisers, who are held by the collector responsible for the correctness 
of their written report. In many cases, especially where the goods are 
examined at the piers and on the wharves, a mile or more distant from 
this office, the local appraisers have in a great measure to depend on the 
representation of the examiner. Samples, however, are generally 
brought by the examiners for the inspection of the appraisers and as a 
verification of the correRness of their oral report. 

13. I have no evidence that any Government official, in the consular 
department or elsewhere, has assisted, or consented to, or connived at the 


456 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


presentation to the local appraisers at this port of false evidence of for¬ 
eign values. 

14. There having been no habitual or systematic reports to the col¬ 
lector of this port of false values, I am unable to speak of the several 
interrogatories embraced in this number. 

15. There being no false valuations at this port on the part of the local 
appraisers and examiners connected with this branch of the customs 
service arising from bribery or venality, I am assured in the belief 
that the same state of affairs will continue to exist in this branch and 
in other branches of the service at this port. 

16. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty would 
be beneficial to the revenue, and remove all inducement to tamper 
with inspectors and examiners. It would remove one of the fruitful 
sources of controversy between appraisers and importers as to foreign 
market value. Much uncertainty will always exist as to market value 
of goods paying an ad valorem duty, owing to the fluctuations of trade 
and commerce, and the consequent fluctuations in prices, which can 
only be remedied by the adoption of specific duties wiienever practi¬ 
cable. 

I would suggest that a specific duty be placed on the following arti¬ 
cles : On Castile soap, 1 cent to 11 cents per pound ; Venetian red, 1 of 
a cent per pound; salt-cake, 1 of a cent per pound; olive-oil, salad, 40 
cents per gallon ; olive-oil for machinery, 25 cents per gallon; cement 
of all kinds, i of a cent per pound. 

I do not think specific rates of duty can be applied to textile fabrics. 
The great inequality of texture and price, and the confusion and injus¬ 
tice that would inevitably arise from the imposition of specific duties 
on this class of goods would render a change of the present system im¬ 
practicable. 

17. I have no data on hand upon which to form anything like a correct 
opinion in regard to the effect of the repeal of the moiety act, or whether 
any false reports by the appraisers elsewhere than at this port have been 
increased by its repeal. The modification of the law of 1863, investing 
customs officers with the power to seize the books and papers of mer¬ 
chants, was wise and judicious legislation. This right was liable to 
great abuse, and was productive in many cases of great injustice and 
wrong. 

18. I do not think it would be practicable in the large American dis¬ 
tricts (consular) referred to in this interrogatory to personally inspect 
and examine the great variety of articles shipped from their respective 
consular districts to the seaboard for transportation to American ports, 
and verily the correctness of invoiced values of goods. If they have 
doubts as to correctness of values stated on any particular invoice, the 
present mode seems to me the best to detect and correct an attempt at 
undervaluation. The consul in such cases should state liis views of the 
market value of such goods on the triplicate invoice sent to the col¬ 
lector of the port where the goods are to be entered without the knowl¬ 
edge of the shipper, manufacturer, purchaser, or importer. The for¬ 
eign governments would, I think, be very likely to complain of the 
delays and vexations their merchants would be subject to from the ex¬ 
ercise of such personal examinations of theii^oods. The usual fees of 
certification are 15 shillings, composed of 10 shillings 6 pence for con¬ 
sul 7 s certificate, and 4 shillings 6 pence or affidavits or acknowledg¬ 
ments before a commissioner. 


REPOKT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 457 


19. I think it would be advisable to change the existing law which 
gives to the appraiser’s department the sole and exclusive determination 
of dutiable value, if made in conformity with law, if the suggestions I 
have made in my answer to No. 6 should be incorporated as a part of 
the organic law respecting revenue cases. If a customs court should be 
established in the place of the several general appraisers, the importers 
should be given the right of appeal to said court within three days on 
all questions of value. If the law remains as it now is, I think there 
should be a change authorizing the appointment of an additional mer¬ 
chant appraiser, selected by the importer, and the two merchant ap¬ 
praisers and general appraiser should decide by a majority all ques¬ 
tions submitted to them. 

20. There has been so little wool imported into this port within the 
last ten years that it would be impossible for me to give any satisfac¬ 
tory history of the working of the complicated rates of duty now in 
force. A careful and accurate analysis of these rates since 1860 would 
inquire a thorough examination of all the acts of Congress. The com¬ 
pilation of Mr. Heyl, which is generally pretty accurate, would give 
the key to the solution of this question. It would, however, require 
more time and a more thorough examination than I could give to pre¬ 
pare an accurate statement on this subject, and the conclusions would 
be too voluminous to be incorporated in this report. 

21. I have no reason to believe, or even suppose, that the practice of 
the payment of money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors of 
baggage for any of the purposes suggested in this interrogatory has ever 
prevailed at this port. No other punishment should be inflicted upon so 
unworthy a public servant than instant dismissal. 

22. I know of no failure to collect the whole duty prescribed by law 
on imported articles by the officials at this port. I do not think the 
rates of duty are so high as to induce smuggling or cause dishonest 
practices by shippers. 

23. The causes for the failure, whatever they may be, to enforce the 
revenue laws at the port of New York do not, I know, exist at this port. 

24. There being no false returns or false reports made to the collector 
of this port of dutiable values, there has not been any ground for com¬ 
plaint, arrest, indictment, or imprisonment of any official since my con¬ 
nection, for the past ten years, with the appraiser’s department at this 
port. 

These answers are of course intended to convey my personal and in¬ 
dividual knowledge of such acts and doings as have come within my 
observation since January 19, 1875, when I entered upon my duties as 
local appraiser at this port. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, yours, 

HENRY H. GOLDSBOROUGH, 

Local Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


458 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 35. 

HENRY CLAY NAILL—Appointed Surveyor March 17, 1882. 

Custom-House, Baltimore, Md., 

Surveyor's Office , October 14, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor, in reply to the inquiries contained in Depart¬ 
ment circular, dated August 27, i885, touching “a correct appreciation 
of the results and the effort of our (the Department’s) investigations of 
custom-house affairs,” to submit the following answers, viz: 

1. I have no evidence, ‘ 1 keeping in mind the distinction between rates 
of duty and dutiable values,” that the rates of duty have not within 
the last few years, or at any time, been levied and collected as the law 
prescribed. 

2. I have no evidence “that on articles which the law says shall pay 
purely specific rates, without reference to values, the full amount of 
duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected.” 

3. I have heard one, and perhaps both, of the “local appraisers” at 
this port describe, incidentally, in what manner and by w hat tests the 
invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified in the usual course 
of custom-house business. But, as it was not necessary for me to tax 
my mind with the subject, it having no connection with my official 
duties, I do not now recollect accurately in w hat manner and by wffiat 
tests invoiced measurements are verified. 

4. As to this inquiry, I have no information whatever upon the sub¬ 
ject. 

5. I am not aware of any evidence “of lalse or incompetent or inad¬ 
equate weighing or measuring on the wharves, ’ ’ or, indeed, anywhere 
else in connection with the customs service at this port. On the con¬ 
trary, I do know that the United States weigher gives the weighing and 
measuring of merchandise the closest attention, and that'the scales are 
carefully tested and adjusted before weighing is begun; and if large 
quantities are being w r eighed, tests are made as the weighing progresses. 
Besides, when scales are returned to the scale-room after weighing has been 
completed, they are invariably cleansed, and then carefully tested as to 
their accuracy by the United States standard weights. A like care is 
practised in regard to tubs, &c., used in measuring merchandise, &c. 

I have entire confidence in the fidelity and competency of the assistant 
weighers, arising from frequent and most careful examinations and tests of 
their weighing and measuring and their returns of the same: and as to 
the adequateness of weighing or measuring, the only complaint of the 
importer is that both are done with unnecessary exactness. The result, 
however, is that custom house weights and measures are held by the 
trade in favorable esteem at this port. 

6. The intimate relations of the collector of customs and the United 
States district attorney with the subject-matter of this inquiry so much 
better enables them to give a more intelligent opinion upon this subject 
than I could give that I shall therefore refrain from expressing any 
opinion in relation thereto. 

7. In regard to this inquiry, I possess no information whatever. 

8. In this, as in the case of the foregoing inquiry, I have no knowl¬ 
edge whatever. 

9. I have no information touching this inquiry. 

10. I am not in possession of any knowledge in regard to the matters 
submitted in this inquiry. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


459 


11. I am unable to say whether or not such estimate of undervalua¬ 
tion could be made and the articles or invoices be identified. 

12. In answer to this inquiry, I would say that, in my opinion, the 
appraiser is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of 
business, for a false return of value to the collector. It is clearly his 
duty to thoroughly fit himself to judge of the correctness of valuations, 
and it is incumbent on him to make such examination in each case as 
will enable him to determine whether or not the return be true or false. 
There are two local appraisers at this port, each of whom receives a 
salary of $3,000. The appraisers at this port, I have reason to believe, 
perform their duties fully up to the measure contemplated by law and 
regulations, and defer no part of their proper functions to the examin¬ 
ers. There are no deputy appraisers at this port. 

13. I have no knowledge touching this inquiry. 

14. I have no information whatever in regard to this inquiry. 

15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality in the past, 

I know of no reason to think that similar corrupt and venal influences 
would not now be brought to bear, or that they will not be successful in 
the future as in the past, unless steps are instituted to prevent the 
temptation from corrupt influences, and, in case such influences should 
be exerted, to see that they will not be successful. This, it seems to me, 
could be done by placing the matter in the hands of those who could 
discover the wrong-doing, and let the proper remedy be applied to stop 
such evil practices. 

16. In answer to this inquiry, I would say that, in my opinion, it is 
probable a change from ad valorem to specific rates would be a benefit 
to the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to bribery, provided the 
existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the future, i think specific 
rates could be applied to all textile fabrics. But this rate would, how¬ 
ever, have the effect to greatly lessen the amount of importations of 
cheap textiles. 

17. I have no information touching this inquiry. 

18. I do not believe it would be practicable to enforce what is fore¬ 
shadowed by this inquiry in any sense. In the first place, I do not think 
it could be efficiently and reliably done; and in the next place, I am of 
the opinion that it would prove exceedingly vexatious on account of 
delays, as well as for other reasons, and would lead to almost endless 
complaints to this Government. 

I do not know what fees are exacted by American consuls in each 
shipment in any of the ports of England for certifying invoices of articles 
of any size and value. 

19. I can think of no reason why it would not be safe or useful to the 
revenue and just to importers that the executive or the judicial powers 
have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of the duti¬ 
able value which is to be the basis on which the collector is to levy ad 
valorem rates. 

20. As this inquiry can be so much more intelligently answered by 
the appraisers of merchandise, owing to their familiarity with the sub¬ 
ject, than any one else, I shall defer this inquiry to that branch of the 
service. 

21. In response to this inquiry, I would say I have no belief or in¬ 
formation as to any other port than this as to whether or not the practice 
generally prevails, or prevails at all, of the payment of money by arriv¬ 
ing passengers to Customs inspectors in regard to the examination of 


460 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


baggage or luggage, either to prevent or facilitate or hasten an exami¬ 
nation of the same, to ascertain whether or not it contains dutiable 
articles, or to pass baggage or luggage without examining it at all. As 
to this port, I am confident in my belief that no such practice has ever 
prevailed since my induction into office as surveyor at this port. 

The handliug of passengers and their baggage and luggage is done under 
the supervision of the deputy surveyor of customs, aided by a district 
officer and a number of customs inspectors and a female inspector, on 
enclosed piers, from which all unauthorized persons are excluded; and I 
am satisfied that it would be impossible, under the scrutiny exercised, 
for this practice to prevail without immediate detection. And, while 
no effort has been spared to discover the offering of bribes by any one 
to customs officers under the direction of the surveyor, yet there has 
been no instance where there was even a suspicion that any customs 
officer had accepted money or any other valuable consideration that 
would in any way influence his official conduct. 

22. I know of no evidence tending to show that the Treasury has 
failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law in respect to any arti¬ 
cle by reason of Congress having carried the rate beyond and above 
the line which the Government can surely protect, or into a region where 
smugglers and dishonest shippers will be very powerful in evading the 
law. 

23. I am not informed as to the cause of the failure of the Treasury 
Department to enforce the revenue law' in New York, and hence I am 
not able to say whether or not similar reasons exist at the other large 
Atlantic ports, or that there has been a failure to enforce the revenue 
law at such ports. 

24. I have no knowledge that false returns or reports to the collectors 
of dutiable values have been made at any time, and if such returns or 
reports have been made, I am unable to say why the persons or officials 
concerned therein have not been complained of, arrested, indicted, and 
punished. 

I would respectfully state, in conclusion, that the delay in responding 
to the circular hereinbefore considered has arisen from severe illness, 
which compelled my absence from the post of duty for several w r eeks. 

Very respectfully, 

HENRY CLAY NAILL, 

Surveyor of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 36. 

J. H. BUTLER—Appointed Janitor, Portland, May 9, 1876; Examiner, Baltimore, 

August 5, 1877. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 14, 1885. 
Sir : I have fihe honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular 
letter of the 9th instant, marked “confidential,” asking information in 
reference to customs business at this place. 

In reply, I would respectfully state that at the port of Baltimore, so 
far as I am aware, the tariff laws are obeyed in spirit and in letter, 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 461 


There is no disposition manifested by the importers to evade the cus¬ 
toms duty, and the amount of tax assessed is properly collected by the 
duly authorized agents of the Government. 

A few cases of undervaluation are recorded, and some of these have 
been due to a delay in the shipment of the goods after the invoice cov¬ 
ering the same has been certified to by the United States consul, the 
goods in the interval advancing in value above the price named, and 
the importer failing to note on his invoice entry the advanced price. 
This I have had to occur in the line of goods that I examine. 

Other cases of advanced value have been due to the fact that the im¬ 
porter does not always enter the cost of the inside cases and cartons, or 
the cost of casks and barrels, which, with some articles of importation, 
are regarded by the Government as dutiable. 

In regard to the undervaluation of merchandise in New York, I know 
nothing personally, but I learn that merchants of this city who formerly 
imported goods from abroad now buy the same class of goods in New 
York, and the reason given is that they can purchase goods more cheaply 
in that city than import them from Paris, London, or Liverpool. 

In regard to specific and ad valorem duties, I would respectfully state 
that all duties should be, as far as possible, specific. With this end in 
view in my department of goods, I would respectfully suggest that 
instead of a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem on the article largely im¬ 
ported and known as salt-cake there should be levied the same duty as 
imposed on soda-ash, viz., I cent per pound. On Venetian red, instead 
of the present duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem the duty should be made 
i cent per pound. On olive-oil and on machinery-oil, in lieu of the 
duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem of the present tariff, the duty should 
be 40 cents per gallon on olive-oil and 25 cents per gallon on machinery- 
oil. 

In regard to damage appraisement, I would respectfully suggest that 
allowance for damage during the voyage of importation be done away with 
altogether so far as the Government is concerned. Let the full amount 
of duty be collected, and then allow the settlement to be made between 
the importer on the one side and the insurance company and the ship’s 
company on the other, but let the Government have no more part in it 
than it has when the damage occurs during the voyage of importation 
to free goods. This would greatly simplify the matter, and would re¬ 
move all chance of fraud in this direction. 

Desiring to do all in my power to correct abuses, to simplify the tariff 
laws, and to facilitate the collection of the revenue, the above is Respect¬ 
fully submitted by your obedient servant, 

JAMES H. BUTLER, M. D., 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


462 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 37. 

JOHN C. BRIDGES—Appointed Examiner May 25, 1878. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 18, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your circular letter of 9th instant, propounding 
certain inquiries concerning custom-house affairs, &c., I herewith respect¬ 
fully offer the following replies: 

1. None to my knowledge. 

2. None to my knowledge. 

3. Textile fabrics are not examined by me, they being in charge of 
another examiner. 

4. I am not aware, nor have I heard, of any such cases of collusion. 

5. I know of none, and never heard of any. 

6. My duties are confined to the examinations of merchandise in ware¬ 
houses and vessels at the wharves, and afford me no opportunity of ac¬ 
quiring the information asked for by the sixth inquiry, and am, there¬ 
fore, unable to answer it. 

7. I have no knowledge or information in respect to the matter to 
which the seventh inquiry relates. 

8. See answer to seventh inquiry. 

9. So far as this port is concerned, the appraiser’s officers here, in my 
opinion, always exercise particular care to report correct dutiable values, 
and as to the practices at other ports, I have no knowledge or informa¬ 
tion. 

10. It sometimes happens that imported articles do not specifically 
answer to the description of any one class of dutiable goods as contained 
in our tariff laws. In such cases, doubts necessarily arise as to the 
proper classification of the goods, but such cases have not, in my ex¬ 
perience, occasioned any serious conflicts of opinion in the appraiser’s 
department. In the main, the statutes furnish adequate standards for 
determining dutiable values of imported goods, but new kinds of goods 
from time to time come into the market, in reference to which it is some¬ 
times difficult to determine the proper application of the tariff laws. 

11. I am not able to say. 

12. The examiner makes the valuation of the goods in the first in¬ 
stance, and his valuation, although always submitted to the appraiser 
for his*approval, usually remains unaltered. I therefore think that the 
examiner should be regarded as primarily and chiefly responsible for 
any undervaluation. When any doubts are suggested about valuations, 
the appraiser, after his investigation, determines the matter. The ex¬ 
aminers’ salaries are $1,600 and $1,800 per annum. 

13. None to my knowledge. 

14. I am entirely ignorant of any such cases. 

15. The only remedy for bribery and venality, if such exist, would, I 
think, be detection and punishment. 

16. Specific duties would, I think, be simpler, and their collection 
accompanied with fewer difficulties; but whether a change from ad va¬ 
lorem to specific duties would afford any greater protection against dis¬ 
honesty or bribery is difficult to say. I cannot state in regard to textile 
fabrics. 

17. I do not know. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


463 


18. Owing to the very extensive imports into the United States from 
the large cities of Western Europe, it would, I think, be impracticable 
to secure satisfactory examinations of such merchandise at the ports of 
exportation. It is more probable that the present custom-house system 
of the United States, with the examinations incident thereto, would se¬ 
cure correct valuations of imported goods than any system which it 
would be possible for the United States to enforce in foreign countries. 
Nor is it at all likely that foreign governments, most of which already 
view with disfavor our tariff laws, would encourage or submit to any 
extended system of examinations by our agents within their dominions, 
The regular consul fee fixed by law is $2.50. Whether any greater fees 
are in fact exacted I do not know. 

19. I do not know. 

20. This article is not embraced in my department of examinations of 
merchandise. 

21. I have heard rumors that in New York, where large numbers of 
passengers are constantly arriving, such practices prevail, but I have no 
personal knowledge whatever of the matter. 

22. I have not sufficient knowledge to enable me to express an opinion. 

23. I think not. 

24. I do not know, unless it be that the guilty parties were not de¬ 
tected. I have no knowledge of any such false returns or reports. 

Very respectfullv. &c., 

JOHN C. BBIDGES, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 38. 

W. L. SHAW—Appointed Examiner May 25, 1878. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Appraiser's Office, October 2, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to the confidential circular of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment, under date of September 9,1885, requesting replies to the inquiries 
therein propounded, I herewith subjoin my answer to the various inter¬ 
rogations, regretting that my official duties do not afford me time to give 
a more complete answer to details of facts and figures desired by you. 

First. In answer to the first interrogatory— 

1. I do not know of any. 

2. I do not know of any. 

3. In so far as the appraiser’s office is concerned, actual measurement 
by the examiner. 

4. I do not know of any. 

5. I do not know of any. 

6. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer. 

7. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer. 

8. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer. 

9. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer. 

10. (a) None that I know of. (b) Yes. 

11. The appraiser ought to be able to answer this question j I cannot. 



464 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


12. Primarily, the examiner. In cases of doubt, merchandise and 
values are carefully examined by appraiser and examiner. Salary of 
appraiser, $3,000; salaries of examiners, $1,600 and $1,800. 

13. I do not know of any. 

14. I do not know of any. 

15. I do not know of any cases specified in this question. 

16. In my opinion, a change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
be a benefit, but do not think it could be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. I do not know. 

18. (1.) I do not think it would be practicable. (2.) Unable to an¬ 
swer. (3.) Most likely it would. (4.) Two dollars and fifty cents, I 
think. 

19. Cannot answer. 

20. Have no data from which to compile such a statement. 

21. In my opinion, the practice of feeing customs officers at this port 
does not prevail at all. 

22. I do not know. 

23. I do not know. 

24. I do not know. 

Very respectfully, • 

W. L. SHAW, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 39. 

M. CLARA LEE—Appointed Examiner June 16, 1882. 

Custom-House, Baltimore, Md., 

Surveyor 1 s Office , October 3, 1885. 

Sir : My service as examiner is confined to the persons of female pas¬ 
sengers on the steamers; consequently, I am not in a position that 
enables me to give you the information you desire in reply to the twenty- 
four questions. I can, in reply to the twenty-first question, say I have 
never seen any bribe or payment for service rendered accepted by any 
customs inspector of baggage at this port. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

M. CLABA LET 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 40. 

SAMUEL KNODE—Appointed Inspector July 18, 1873; Examiner July 16, 1883. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Appraisers Office , October 7, 1885. 

Sir: In answer to your questions contained in communication of 
September 9, 1885, I have the honor to make reply as follows: 

1. None at this port. 

2. No. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


4G5 


3. By frequent actual measurements. 

4. None at tins port. 

5. None here. 

6. As that matter is entirely in the hands of the collector, I have no 
means of finding out. 

7. I am unable to answer. 

8. (1.) Indolence or dishonesty of officials. (2.) I know of no reliable 
evidence. 

9. No such reports have been made from this office. 

10. (1.) None now or recently. (2.) Fully defined, I think. 

11. If it ever existed, the records, being preserved, should give details, 
and from them an average could be made. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, though usually 
all invoices are closely scrutinized by local appraisers before indorse¬ 
ment. Salaries of examiners at this port are $1,600 or $1,800. Yes; at 
this port the appraisers frequently assist in making examinations. 

13. None to my knowledge. 

14. If false values have been habitually reported, &c., it can be fairly 
said the failure is chargeable to dishonesty, and certainly been accom¬ 
panied with guilty knowedge on the part of appraisers and examiners. 

15. I know of none. 

16. Yes, in all cases where it could possibly be applied; but specific 
rates could not be applied to textile fabrics. 

17. Cannot answer. 

18. (1.) No. (2.) None. (3.) They certainly would complain, and 
not without cause. (4.) Fifteen shillings. 

19. I think it would be perfectly just and equitable that the executive 
or judicial powers should have greater jurisdiction. 

20. Having no data to guide me, I am unable to answer, but I think a 
specific rate on wool would be much more satisfactory than the one now 
in use. 

21. It has been frequently asserted, and has generally been received as 
a fact, that inspectors of customs are in the habit of receiving moneys, 
&c., as bribes at the port of New York, but I have never known of a 
case at this port. The only means I know to remedy the evil is to turn 
all dishonest men out, and keep turning out until you get honest men 
to enforce the laws. 

22. I am unable to answer. 

23. Not at this port. 

24. I am unable to answer. 

Very respectfully, 

SAMUEL KNODE, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 41. 

JOHN R. FELLMAN—Appointed Assistant Examiner December 29, 1874. 

Port of Baltimore, Md., 

Appraiser's Office, October 7, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully acknowledging the receipt of your circulars of Sep¬ 
tember 9 and 30, I must beg your indulgence for delayed answer. I 
have been seriously sick last month, and now I am suffering from a 
30 A 



466 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


weakness of the eyes, preventing me from writing as fully and carefully 
as I wish to. Please accept the following answers to your questions as 
the best I can do under the circumstances : 

Answers to Questions . 

1 and 2. I am not aw T are of any. 

3. By actual measurement with yard stick, &c., and by calculations. 

4. I do not know of any such evidence, and do not think such action 
has been practised at this port. 

5. It is beyond my sphere of duty and observance, and therefore I do 
not know of any. 

6. I think the tariff laws need amendment to prevent the occurrence 
of such differences; they should be more comprehensive and definite, 
avoiding all ambiguities and uncertainties. I have no idea of the num¬ 
ber of suits pending, or of their different kinds and time of standing. 
I only know that a great many protests have been filed against making 
•certain charges for packing, packing-boxes, &c., dutiable, and that 
many importers hope for refund of duty in consequence of judicial de¬ 
cisions. It would certainly be very desirable to have a new law for the 
quick liquidation of differences of opinion about rates of duty, and I do 
not see why such questions cannot be similarly settled as questions of 
value. 

7. I am not sufficiently conversant with the irregularities charged to 
New York to offer any opinion about them or about a plan for contro¬ 
verting them. 

8. It has never occurred to me that the irregularities charged to New 
York are due to ignorance, indolence, or dishonesty; but I cannot en¬ 
tirely exclude from my mind the idea, shared by a great many, that the 
New York custom-house is endeavoring to draw all the import trade to 
that city by the utmost liberality in fixing rates of duty or concessions 
made to importers not granted at other ports. 

9. I am confident that false reports of dutiable value have never 
knowingly been made by the appraisers at this port during my time in 
office; to answer for any other port is impossible for me. 

10. There has been no confusion, doubt, or conflict of opinion in our 
office on the question of dutiable values, but always an earnest endeavor 
to arrive at truth and correctness. The question of including or ex¬ 
cluding packing-charges of various kinds has often been debated, but 
always with a view to comply strictly with the law and with existing 
decisions. 

11. Not being aware of any undervaluations made by appraisers, it 
is impossible to estimate the amount of them. 

12. We have no assistant or deputy appraisers at this port. I have 
Been in office with old and with new examiners and appraisers, and I 
think that when an experienced examiner is with a new appraiser the 
former is the responsible party, whilst in the case of a new examiner 
with an experienced appraiser the latter evidently becomes the respon¬ 
sible party. Logically correct appears to me only that view which af¬ 
fixes to the higher grade of appointment and larger salary the burden 
of responsibility. An appraiser of late appointment, with experi¬ 
enced, faithful, and honest examiners, may feel perfectly at ease to sign 
anything presented to him by them. He is, nevertheless, the party 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. 467 


legally responsible, and any attempt to shift the responsibility upon a 
subordinate would be unjust. The salary of appraiser here is $3,000; 
that of examiner, $1,600 to $1,800. 

13. None have come to my notice. 

14. I must emphatically say that no evidences of fraud or connivance 
at fraud on the part of Government officers have ever come to my notice. 

15. In my opinion, none whatever. 

16. In my opinion, specific rates of duty are preferable to ad valorem, 
as they would in a large measure take away the temptations to fraud; 
but I am well aware that in the case of textile fabrics and many other 
articles their application is utterly impracticable, and would work in¬ 
justice. 

17. I do not think they have; at least, no cases have come to my 
knowledge. 

18. Such a thing would not, in my opinion, be practicable, and I 
have the greatest doubt that there is any consular district or place where 
it is possible to ascertain, to know, and give so-called market values 
with accuracy and certainty. It is very likely that foreign governments 
would object to vexatious delays in ascertaining and certifying market 
values by consular officers. The fee for consular certificates, irrespective 
of amount of value, is $2.50. 

19. I think the manner of definitely settling dutiable values provided 
for in the present law is about as simple and equitable as it can be 
made, and if the determination of rates of duty could be made equally 
simple, it would certainly remove many great embarrassments. I think 
such a step could be made if the tariff laws Avould provide as many 
specific duties as possible, and word the provisions for ad valorem duties 
fully and without equivocation. 

20. Very little wool is imported at this port, and such as is is not in 
my department, and I could not do justice to this question if I would 
attempt to do so. 

21. Such a practice does not exist at this port. 

22. It does not appear to me that any of the higher rates of duty are 
any special inducement or temptation to fraud and smuggling, and I 
do not think that the law is to blame in any particular case. It is more 
the fact that duty is levied at all. 

23. I have always thought, and think so now, that the revenue laws 
are faithfully and promptly executed, at this port by local officers and 
the Treasury Department. 

24. Having above said that I have no knowledge of false returns of 
dutiable values having been made at this port, I have no answer to this 
question. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

I have the honor to be, your most obedient servant, 

JOHN R. FELLMAN, 

Examiner . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


468 REFORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


PORT OF BOSTON. 


No. 42. 

ROLAND WORTHINGTON—Appointed Collector May 16, 1882. 

Custom-House, Boston, Mass., 
Collector’s Office , September 15, 1885. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of Department circular of 
the 27th ultimo, and, having carefully considered the various inquiries 
submitted therein, now beg leave to submit the following as responsive 
thereto: 

1. I have no evidence, neither have I been able to procure any, that 
the duties “have not, within the last few years, been levied and collected 
as the law prescribes.” 

2. I have no evidence, neither have I been able to procure any, that 
the “full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected.” 

3. In verifying the widths and lengths of textile fabrics the yard-stick 
is used, much care being exercised to insure proper classification under 
the tariff. In case of possible change of rate, the widths are ascertained 
with great exactness, while the lengths are determined as often as is 
thought necessary to test the marked lengths on the tags. For the pur¬ 
pose of ascertaining whether the goods are over or under four ounces to 
the square yard, finely-adjusted scales are used, and as many pieces in 
any one case are weighed as may be thought necessary to make the 
classification sure. 

* 4. I know of no collusion between the importer, or any one repre 
senting him, either directly or indirectly, and the entry clerk or deputy 
collector 1 ‘ to send to the appraisers for examination a bogus or false 
package as a fair example of one in every ten;” and, from the well- 
known character for official integrity and private worth of my subordi¬ 
nates having this important duty in charge, I am of the opinion that 
they would not be a party to such a nefarious proceeding, even if ap¬ 
proached by any unconscionable importer or his agent. 

5. I have no evidence of any false or incompetent or inadequate 
weighing or measuring on the wharves. 

6. As regards the question of interest as a part of the damages and 
costs in “collector’s suits,” the rate, I understand, is governed by the 
laws of the State where suit is brought and trial had. Here in Massa¬ 
chusetts the public statutes provide that when there is no agreement 
for a different rate, the interest of money shall be at the rate of six dol¬ 
lars upon each hundred dollars for a year, but it shall be lawful to pay 
interest on contract for any rate. Other States, I understand, have 
similar provision on their statute-books, while some do not. I think it 
would be judicious that there should be some legislation on the subject 
to the effect that, in all such suits where judgment shall be rendered 
against the United States, a specific rate of interest should be declared 
say 5 per cent. This would secure uniformity. 

As regards the necessity for a new tribunal to try judicially questions 
growing out of rates of external or internal taxations I am clearly of 
the opinion that it is eminently desirable that a reform be introduced, 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 469 


but it is extremely difficult to determine just what that reform shall be. 

Secretary Windom issued, under date of June 15,1881, a circular letter, 
presenting, among other things, this general question. Eeplies, as re- 
quasted, were made by several of the customs officers at this port. They 
were subsequently printed, with the views of officials at other ports, in 
pamphlet form, and I think were incorporated in the Secretary’s report 
to Congress for that year. 

I beg leave to refer the Department to that report, embodying, as it 
does, the views of the various officials at this and other ports on the 
question submitted, and which I consider worthy of consideration. 

It has seemed to me that the existing judicial system of the Govern¬ 
ment needs reorganization. I very much doubt if, with all its efficiency, 
the desired relief can be effected as at present constituted. 

Interrogatories 7 to 9 seem to have reference to a condition of affairs 
disclosed by the recent investigations by the official representative of 
the honorable Secretary, regarding which I have no knowledge other 
than what I have acquired through the public prints of the day. I 
would say that the same general condition of things does not, in my 
opinion, exist at this port. So far as my knowledge extends, whenever 
evidence, either oral or written, has been submitted by the Treasury 
agents bearing upon the question of undervaluation, the appraisers, hav¬ 
ing duly weighed the same, have made advance to invoice values. They 
have been in sympathy and accord with these officials. 

10. The statutes of the United States would seem to clearly define the 
elements which compose the dutiable value of imported merchandise. 

11. I have no data upon which to base an estimate. I have no knowl¬ 
edge of any instance coming within the scope of this inquiry. 

12. I regard the examiner as the official primarily and chiefly re¬ 
sponsible, in the usual course of business, for a false return of value to 
the collector. The salary of the examiners at this port ranges all the 
way from $1,200 to $2,000 per annum. 

13. I have no knowledge on this point. 

14. The premises being conceded, I think it can “ fairly be said that 
the failure has come of dishonesty and been accompanied by guilty 
knowledge on the part of Treasury or customs officials,” but of whom 
I have no knowledge. 

I have no knowledge that “money has been paid to American officials 
to get false reports of dutiable values,” nor “who has furnished or paid 
it,” nor “by what means and agency,” nor “where such corruption 
fund has been raised and disbursed.” 

15. If the false valuations have come of bribery or venality, the vig¬ 
orous measures recently adopted by the Department in its investiga¬ 
tions of frauds on the revenue will, in my judgment, greatly retard, if 
not wholly eradicate, these alleged nefarious practices. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates, I am inclined to think 
would be a benefit to the revenue, and would help to diminish a tendency 
to bribery. Specific rates, it would seem, might be applied to all textile 
frabrics. 

17. I have no data on which to base an intelligent opinion on this 
point. 

18. I should consider the plan practicable and beneficial in results, 
provided there be an ample force of energetic and efficient consular 
agents. Unwarrantable delays in examining values and certifying in- 


470 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


voices would have a tendency to create complaints by foreign govern¬ 
ments where such delays existed. 

The fees appearing upon invoices, as charged by the cousuls in Lon¬ 
don and in England for certifying invoices, irrespective of values, is 
$2.50, which is the tariff rate prescribed by the Consular Regulations. 

19. Basing my opinion upon the workings of the system at this port, 
I think that the law, (section 2930, Revised Statutes,) although some¬ 
what arbitrary and summary in its provisions, in the main operates ad¬ 
vantageously, as well to the Government as to the importer, and is sat¬ 
isfactory alike to both. It would be diffcult, it seems to me, to formu¬ 
late a system which would be any improvement on the present method, 
which has been in operation ever since the act of August 30,1842, took 
effect. 

20. The following is a codification of the various tariff acts since 1860, 
imposing duty on wool, with the rates under each of the several tariffs 
therein enumerated. I exceedingly regret that I have been unable 
to procure facts and figures which illustrate the “ working of the com¬ 
plicated rates on wool that are now in force.’* 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. 471 




I” 

◄ 


I 


1 


►o 

si 


o 

* 

< 

13 

§ 

§| 

if 
3 « 

I 

c 

I 


o 


*0 

■8 

*< 


•sj 

◄ 


m mi i 
:::::= a 
11 ! i a a 


: 


\J£ 


m\ 

i«co ®» : 


|IJi!l 
al&Nl l 

Jal^as 1 

*SSSS° 8 

llflll « 

ISIS l 

► 


45 45 45 45 

“||I| I|I| 

« a » a ® a * a 

■S-oO ■g^'S© 

s~s sjT 

II II 

S 2 . ^ 2 
■s'S's'S --i'S’o'S 
£ •- 5 h c *« 5 •- 
;&;& *&;& 
aori® £c5o 
















































































472 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


21. If general rumor be true, such a practice has existed at the port 
of Hew York. I do not, however, believe that it has prevailed at the 
port of Boston. An elevation in the moral tone of those to whom this 
somewhat delicate but responsible duty is assigned, and a strict and 
impartial enforcement of the law, would be productive of beneficial 
results and largely check the illicit practice. 

The public statutes of the United States contain ample penal provis¬ 
ions. What is needed is their faithful enforcement by honest and 
trustworthy officials in all cases of guilty infraction. 

22. As a general rule, I think that the higher the rate of duty the 
greater the temptation to evade the law. 

23. I can only speak for the port of Boston, where it is my belief the 
revenue has been honestly collected and the revenue laws faithfully 
enforced. Such has been my aim and endeavor. 

24. I should consider it to be my duty, under my official oath, to re¬ 
port all cases for prosecution where false returns or reports of dutiable 
value have been made. I am not aware, however, that any such in¬ 
stances have occurred at this port. 

I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servant, 

E. WORTHIHGTOH, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Since writing the above, I have procured, through the courtesy of the 
United States attorney for this district, a reply to my request for a list 
of customs cases pending in the United States circuit and district courts 
for the Massachusetts district “in respect to rates of duty and differ¬ 
ences between importers and collectors growing out of decisions by the 
latter and the Treasury,” a copy of which is as follows: 

1. Cases involving the question of the duty on “wool:” Three cases. 
First suit, April 1, 1874; argued on agreed facts May, 1877. Decision 
by Clark, J., (in favor of United States,) May, 1880. Appealed to United 
States Supreme Court, 1882. Hot yet decided. 

2. Cases involving the classification for duty of “wool webbing:” 
Fourteen cases. First suit, December 17,1878; argued on agreed facts 
February 9, 1881. Decision by Lovell, J., (for plaintiffs,) 1883. Writ 
of error to United States Supreme Court May, 1883. Hot yet decided. 

3. Cases involving the classification for duty of “marble:” Five 
cases. First suit, September 30, 1880. Question decided in Pennsyl¬ 
vania. (Cases probably to be discontinued.) 

4. Cases involving the question of the duty on “aniline dyes:” Eight 
cases. First suit, August 13, 1881; heard on agreed facts Hovember 25, 
1885. Decided in favor of United States March 15, 1883. Gone to 
United States Supreme Court. 

5. Cases involving the question of whether, under section 7 of the 
tariff act of March 3, 1883, the boxes, cartons, or coverings containing 
different kinds of merchandise shall be included as a part of the value 
of the merchandise contained therein as a basis of dutiable valuation: 
Sixty-seven cases. First suit brought August 25, 1883. Cases ready 
for hearing. 

6. Cases involving the classification for duty of “white enamels:” 
Three cases. First suit brought September 20,1883. Ready for hearing. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


473 


7. Cases involving the classification for duty of albums bound in silk- 
plush covers: Three cases. First suit brought September 27, 1883. 
Beady for hearing. 

8. Cases involving the question of the duty on “ gilling-twine:” Eight 
cases. First suit, February 6, 1884. Beady for heariug. 

9. Cases involving the question of the duty on “iron show-cards:” 
Six cases. First suit, April 18, 1884. Beady for hearing. 

10. Cases involving the classification for duty of “hosiery, &c., made 
of merino:” Three cases. First suit, July, 1883; argued on agreed 
facts September, 1885. 

11. Miscellaneous cases: Twelve in number, which cannot readily be 
classified. Five heard, decided, and appealed to United States Supreme 
Court. Seven ready for hearing. 

Total number, 132 cases. 


No. 43. 

GEORGE B. SANGER—Appointed United States District Attorney, (Boston, Mass.,) 

June 20, 1873. 

Office of the United States Attorney, 
District of Massachusetts, 

Boston , October 10, 1885. 

Sir: Your printed circular marked “strictly confidential,” and to 
which you request an early reply, was received by me on the 10th ultimo. 
I have been prevented by illness from making an earlier reply, as stated 
more fully in my personal letter to you of the 8th instant. 

The sixth article of the circular is marked, and it is to that alone, as 
I understand, that you wish me to reply. I therefore confine this letter 
to that article. 

I think the existing law in respect to the masters enumerated in the 
first and second lines of said sixth article can be much improved by 
amendments, and that amendments are necessary and advisable, unless 
some more radical change is desirable, such, for instance, as the estab¬ 
lishment of a new tribunal for the trial of revenue cases. I understand 
that in this inquiry you refer to the method of determining differences 
as to questions of revenue which have already resulted in suits, and 
that you refer specially to devising some method for the more speedy 
determination of such suits whenever they may be brought. 

There are now pending in this district about one hundred and thirty- 
two suits, involving chiefly the rates of duty upon imported merchan¬ 
dise, a few suits only involving the method of determining the amount 
of the duty on a particular importation. Most of these suits are by im¬ 
porters against collectors. Only a small number, comparatively, are 
brought by the United States against importers, who have obtained pos¬ 
session of their merchandise before the rate and amount of duty thereon 
have been determined. These suits can be classified with substantial 
accuracy, according to the legal question involv' 1 , because there are ordi¬ 
narily, in the course of commerce, many impo dions of the same kind 
of merchandise by the same or different importers, and when one im¬ 
porter has several importations of the same kind of merchandise, or 
several importers in the different ports of the district import that same 
kind of merchandise, and a question is raised by any one importer as 



474 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


to the proper duty thereon, all of them soon learn of it and are eager 
to take their chance of saving in duties; and as suits by importers against 
collectors must be brought within a given time, there may well be nu¬ 
merous suits pending at the same time, involving the same question,, 
which have accumulated while the question in dispute was being settled. 
Thus, the one hundred and thirty-two pending above referred to con¬ 
stitute eleven well-defined groups, with an additional group of miscel¬ 
laneous cases, eight in number, which cannot readily be connected with 
each other. 

These groups are as follows: 

I. —Cases involving the duty on wool where there was some time be¬ 
tween the purchase and the exportation of wool, and the market value 
had in the mean time fallen materially: Three cases. First suit com¬ 
menced in April, 1874; argued on agreed facts May, 1877. Decision by 
the circuit court, (Clark, J.,) in favor of the United States, May, 1880; 
writ of error to United States Supreme Court, 1882. Not yet decided. 
The decision will probably settle the other two cases. 

II. —Cases involving the duty on wool webbing: Fourteen cases. 
First suit, December, 1878; argued on agreed facts February, 1881. 
Decision, by Lowell, J., in favor of plaintiffs, 1883; writ of error by 
collector to United States Supreme Court in May, 1883. Returnable 
at October term, 1883. Not yet decided. The decision in this case will 
probably settle the other thirteen cases. 

It is expected that the cases in Groups I and II will be argued and 
decided at the October, 1885, term of the United States Supreme Court. 

III. —Cases involving the classification for duty of “ sawed, dressed, 
or polished marble, statuary,’ 7 &c.: Five cases. First suit, September 
30, 1880. These suits have not been pressed, as it was understood that 
the question was being litigated and tried in Philadelphia, where a de¬ 
cision is said to have been rendered, in part at least, against the United 
States. 

IV. —Cases involving the duty on “aniline dyes: 77 Eight cases. 
First suit,- August 13, 1881; heard on agreed facts November 25, 1882. 
Decided in favor of the United States, March, 1883. Plaintiffs carried 
the case to the United States Supreme Court, where it is still pending. 

Y.—Cases arising under the seventh section of the tariff act of March 
3, 1883: Sixty-seven cases. First suit brought August 25, 1883. The 
Government is ready to try these cases at any time, but it is understood 
that there have been trials in another district. 

VI. —Cases involving the classification for duty of white enamel: 
Three cases. First suit brought September 20, 1883. These cases are 
ready for trial. 

VII. —Cases involving the classification for duty of albums bound in 
silk-plush covers: Three cases. First suit brought September 27,1883. 
All cases ready for trial. 

VIII. —Cases involving the question of the duty on “ gilling-twine 
Eight cases. First suit, February 6, 1884. Government ready for 
trial. 

IX. —Cases involving the duty on “iron show-cards: 77 Six cases. 
First suit, April 18, 1884; argued on agreed facts, before Clark, J., in 
December, 1884. No decision announced thus far. 

X. —Cases involving the duty on hosiery, &c., made of merino: Three 
cases. First suit, July, 1883; argued on agreed facts September 8,1885. 
Decision not yet given. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 475 

XI. —Cases involving the question whether the value of a patented 
article, over and above the cost of manufacture and a reasonable profit, 
is dutiable. These are cases brought by the United States, and the 
Government claims that under the decisions in United States vs. Cousi- 
nery, 7 Benedict, 251, and subsequent cases to the same effect, it is en¬ 
titled to judgment, as the importer should have paid the duties, pro¬ 
tested, appealed, and then brought suit. And this question is pending 
in the United States Supreme Court, in a case that has been taken to- 
that court from this district. There are four cases in this group. 

XII. —Miscellaneous cases: Eight in number. Five have been tried, 
and are now in United States Supreme Court; three are ready for trial. 

Undoubtedly, these customs cases may be more speedily tried and 
disposed of in the circuit court. I speak of this district, and suppose 
the same to be true of other districts. But when judgment has been 
obtained in the circuit court, the defeated party has two years from 
its date within which to take out his writ of error and carry the case 
to the United States Supreme Court, and when entered there, as things 
now go, it will be four years before it can be reached and argued. Any 
arrangement, therefore, for expediting trials under the present system of 
courts will be likely to be only temporary, insufficient, and unsatis¬ 
factory. The cases are now mainly tried in the circuit court, which is 
overburdened with patent and other cases which, as the business of tho 
country increases, will probably increase. 

There is no doubt in my mind that a new tribunal for the trial and 
disposition of revenue cases, external and internal, properly constituted, 
is necessary, and should be at once established. 

The principles upon which I would have the new tribunal established 
are— 

First. That it should have jurisdiction throughout the United States. 

Second. That there should be frequent terms of the court for the entry 
and trial of such suits monthly in the principal districts, and quarterly 
in others, at which all revenue cases should be entered and at which 
they may be tried. 

Third. That there should be a court of appeals, composed of thre& 
judges of the court, which should hold terms two or three times a year 
in all the principal districts, and once a year or oftener in the other dis¬ 
tricts, if found necessary, at which all questions of revenue law raised 
and saved at the trials, whether before the court or by the jury, or at 
the hearings upon agreed facts, should be argued and decided, and that 
from the decisions of said court, if the amount involved did not exceed 

_thousand dollars, there should be no appeal or writ of error 

unless said court of appeals itself should deem any case of sufficient im¬ 
portance to have the opinion of the Supreme Court taken thereon. 

Fourth. That all such writs of error and appeals should be advanced 
upon the docket of the United States Supreme Court, and be argued at 
the term they are entered. 

To accomplish this, there should be at least five judges of the new 
court any one of whom could hold any nisi prius term of the court in 
any district of the United States, but who should not hold more than 
two consecutive terms in any district. Three of these judges should 
constitute the court of appeals, and the judges should be so assigned to* 
this duty that all should do equal duty as law judges. Their decisions 
upon all law questions should be at once put in print and published. 



476 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Possibly the number of judges named is too small, if all the pending 
revenue cases which would be transferred to the new court were to be 
at once tried and disposed of. Probably, however, the court would 
work its dockets clear, except in one or two districts, in a year, and 
then it could readily dispose of accruing cases. Or it might first dis¬ 
pose of the new cases and devote its spare time to the disposition of the 
old cases. If the number of judges is found to be too small, it can be 
increased. 

One great advantage of the new tribunal thus constituted, would be 
the frequency of the terms of the court, both for the trials of fact and 
for the settlement of questions of law. The number of terms of existing 
courts could not be so increased w ithout disturbing materially the gen¬ 
eral business of said courts. 

The advantage of having a court devoted to one main purpose, and 
trying and disposing of all the revenue cases in the country, is obvious 
as respects speed and uniformity, as well as justice and correctness of 
decisions. 

I do not know that the establishment of such new tribunal w ould re¬ 
quire any new officials, except that the court w r ould prefer to have clerks 
of its own. 

The above is a mere outline sketch indicating generally the objects 
and purposes of such a proposed new tribunal, and is made in the belief 
that some such new tribunal is necessary. 

I do not think the existing judicial system, even if it be worked effi¬ 
ciently, can be made sufficient to accomplish what a new tribunal so 
constituted will perform. 

As to the matter of interest as part of the damages in collectors’ suits, 
if the Government has had the importers’ money wrongfully, it should 
pay interest thereon. Likewise, if the United States should recover of 
the importer any amount due for duties, interest thereon should also be 
recovered. I think it would be well to determine by law what rate of 
interest should be paid in both these cases. Perhaps 5 per cent, per 
annum would be a proper rate for such interest; but upon this point I 
do not speak with any special confidence. 

I think in the foregoing I have expressed an opinion upon all the 
matters referred to in the sixth article of the circular, and respectfully 
submit the same. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


GEORGE P. SANGER, 

United States Attorney . 


No. 44. 

JOSEPH H. BARNES—Appointed Clerk, Boston, November 15, 1865; Deputy Col¬ 
lector March 12, 1874. 

Custom-House, Boston, Mass., 

Collector's Office, September 23, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to submit the following replies to the inquiries 
contained in the communication from the Department of the 9th instant. 

1. I have no knowledge of any evidence that within the last few 
years rates of duty have not been levied and collected as the law 
prescribed. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 477 


2. I know of no evidence that, the full amount of duty has not been 
collected on articles paying purely specific rates. 

3. The contents of the examination packages of textile fabrics are 
compared by the examiner with the invoice, and the width of dress- 
goods paying duty by the square yard is determined by actual measure¬ 
ment of the goods in such packages. The number of yards is not ordi¬ 
narily ascertained by measurement. In the collector’s office the in¬ 
voiced lineal yards are converted into square yards after the appraiser 
has reported on the invoice. 

4. I know of no evidence of collusion between persons making entries 
and the entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the appraiser for ex¬ 
amination a bogus or false package. 

5. I have no evidence of false or imperfect weighing or measuring on 
the wharves. 

6. Differences between importers and collectors, growing out of de¬ 
cisions by the latter and the Treasury, resulting in suits, could, in my 
opinion, be more readily adjusted, and with great advantage to all con¬ 
cerned, by a tribunal created for the purpose of considering and dis¬ 
posing of such cases, its decision to be final and conclusive upon all 
parties. I believe there is a necessity for a new tribunal, and that the 
present system cannot be made sufficient for the purpose. I have not 
the data to enable me to answer the inquiry. 

7. 8, 9. I have no official information regarding the recent investiga¬ 
tions at New York, or of existing facts showing that during recent years 
the full amount of duty has not been collected at that port. 

10. There has been confusion and doubt in all departments in de¬ 
termining whether, under the tariff act of March 3, 1883, the cost of 
the box or covering containing merchandise should form a part of the 
dutiable value of an importation. 

11. If, upon a particular class of articles, there has been a systematic 
undervaluation, it would not be a difficult matter to examine all invoices 
of similar goods for a given period, and, by comparison with invoices 
known to be undervalued, fairly estimate the percentage of undervalua¬ 
tion on the whole. 

12. The appraiser is chiefly responsible for a false return of value to 
the collector. The appraiser should be, and is, more than one who 
officially certifies to information furnished him by his subordinates. He 
is responsible for reports to which his signature is affixed. 

13. I know of no evidence that Government officials, in the consular 
department or elsewhere, have connived at the presentation to the ap¬ 
praisers of false evidence of values. 

14. If false values have been habitually and systematically reported 
to the several collectors, resulting in a failure to collect the full amount 
of duty, I think it can fairly be said that the failure has come of dis¬ 
honesty. Such reports, if made to “the several collectors,” would seem 
to indicate, not guilty knowledge on the part of Treasury or customs 
officials, but rather that these officials were misled by the systematic 
methods of interested parties at home and abroad. I have no knowledge 
that money has been paid to get false returns, nor do I know of a cor¬ 
ruption fund. 

15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, and the 
methods and parties implicated remain undiscovered, I see no reason 
why the evil practices may not continue and be successful while the 
present tariff laws remain in force. 


478 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. 


16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates would, in my judg¬ 
ment, help to diminish a tendency to bribery, and I believe specific rates 
could be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. I cannot say that false reports by the appraisers have been in¬ 
creased by the repeal, in 1874, of the moiety act, and by the customs 
legislation of that date modifying the existing law; but I believe, never¬ 
theless, that such repeal and legislation were opposed to the best inter¬ 
ests of the Government. 

18. It would seem to be impracticable for American consular agents, 
in the large consular districts or elsewhere, to personally examine 
articles to be shipped to American ports and to verify the correctness 
of values. It is not likely that foreign governments would abstain from 
complaints if American consuls made vexatious delays in examining 
values and certifying invoices. I am unable to state what fees are ex¬ 
acted by our consuls for certifying invoices. Prom an inspection of 
London invoices, and of those from many other parts of England, it 
would appear that the fee is $2.50. Invoices from some parts of Eng¬ 
land do not exhibit the fees. 

19. It would not, in my judgment, be either useful to the revenues or 
just to the importers to change the present law with respect to the 
method of determining dutiable values. In my opinion, a change of the 
nature indicated in the inquiry would lead to embarrassments and de¬ 
lays. 

20. In reply to this inquiry, I give below the several rates of duty on 
wool under the various tariff acts since March 2, 1861, which, I fear, 
fails, owing to my inability to obtain the facts in the case, to meet the 
full scope of the inquiry: 

Under the act of March 2, 1861, wool costing less than 18 cents per 
pmnd paid 5 per cent, ad valorem; wool costing 18 cents to 24 cents per 
p mnd paid 3 cents per pound; wool costing over 24 cents per pound 
paid 9 cents per pound. 

Under the act of June 30, 1864. wool costing 12 cents or less per 
pound paid 3 cents per pound; wool costing 12 cents to 24 cents per 
pound paid 6 cents per pound; wool costing 24 cents to 32 cents per 
pound paid 10 cents and 10 per cent.; wool costing over 32 cents per 
pound paid 12 cents and 10 per cent. 

Under the act of March 2, 1867, wools were divided, for the purpose 
of fixing the duties thereon, into three classes, to wit: Class 1, clothing- 
wools; class 2, combing wools; class 3, carpet-wools; and the rates 
provided under said act were as follows: 

Class 1, clothing, costing 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents and 11 
per cent.; over 32 cents per pound, 12 cents and 10 per cent. 

Class 2, combing, costing 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents and 11 
per cent.; over 32 cents per pound, 12 cents and 10 per cent. 

Class 3, carpet, costing 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents; over 12 
cents per pound, 6 cents. 

The foregoing rates to be doubled on wool of the first class if imported 
washed, and to be trebled on wool of all classes if imported scoured. 

Under the act of June 6, 1872, the rates of duty on wool were fixed 
at 90 per cent, of those previously exacted under the act of March 2 
1867. ? 

Under the act of March 3, 1875, the rates imposed by the act of 
March 2, 1867, were restored. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 479 


The existing rates under the act of March 3, 1883, are as follows: 

Class 1, clothing, costing 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents per 
pound; over 30 cents per pound, 12 cents. 

Class 2, combing, costing 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents per 
pound; over 30 cents per pound, 12 cents. 

Class 3, carpet, costing 12 cents or less per pound, 21 cents per pound; 
over 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound. 

Rates to be doubled on washed wools of the first class, and trebled on 
scoured wools of all classes. 

21. I do not believe the practice prevails of the payment of money 
by arriving passengers to customs inspectors to prevent or facilitate an 
examination of baggage. It would seem that ordinary “detective” 
work in suspected localities, if any, could determine whether such prac¬ 
tices prevail. If offences of this nature are found, punishments to the 
full extent of the law would be likely to prevent their repetition. 

22. I have no evidence tending to show that rates of duty on any 
articles have been carried by Congress beyond the line which the Govern¬ 
ment can protect, and into a region where smugglers and others will be 
powerful in evading the law. Powerful attempts to evade the law may 
be met by increased vigilance on the part of Government officials. 

23. Having no actual knowledge of the reasons for the failure to en¬ 
force the revenue laws at Hew York, I am unable to answer. I have no 
official knowledge of such failure beyond that contained in the inquiry, 
which does not recite the reasons. 

24. I have no knowledge of the reasons why persons concerned in 
making false reports of dutiable values have not been arrested and 
punished. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. H. BARNES, 

Deputy Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 45. 

MARTIN A. MUNROE—Appointed Clerk, Boston, July 1, 1873; Deputy Collector 

May 22, 1882. 

Custom-House, Boston, Mass., 

Collector's Office , September 28, 1885. 

Sir : I have respectfully to acknowledge the receipt of your com¬ 
munication of September 9, and would submit the following in reply to 
the inquiries contained therein: ♦ 

1. I know of no evidence that rates of duty have not within the last 
few years been levied and collected as the la\y' prescribed. 

2. I know of no evidence that the full amount of duty has not been 
collected on articles paying purely specific rates. 

3. Invoiced measurements of textile fabrics, such as dress-goods pay¬ 
ing duty per square yard, are verified by examiners who measure the 
width of the goods. The number of yards in the piece is not usually 
verified, except where the examiner has reason to suppose there is an 
intended fraud. If, however, the goods are near the dividing-line 



480 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


between duty per square yard aud duty per pound, the length of each 
piece is verified. After the invoice is reported on by the appraiser and 
returned to the collector’s office, a clerk examines the extensions and 
converts the lineal measurements to square yards. 

4. I have no knowledge of any attempt at collusion between persons 
making entry and the entry clerk or deputy collector in ordering goods 
to the appraiser for examination. 

5. I know of no evidence of false or incompetent or inadequate weigh¬ 
ing or measuring on the wharves. 

6. Amendments which would simplify the existing tariff law would 
undoubtedly largely reduce the differences between importers and col¬ 
lectors as to rates of duty. 

I have not the information at hand which would enable me to give 
the number or classification of collectors’ suits now pending, nor the 
length of time the untried suits have been at issue and ready for trial. 

I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject-matter of the other 
questions to offer any recommendation. 

7. 8, 9. I am unable to answer. 

10. I am not aware of any conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s de¬ 
partment as to what constitutes the dutiable value. 

11. I am unable to answer. 

12. In my opinion, the examiner is primarily responsible and the ap¬ 
praiser chiefly responsible for a false return of value to the collector. 

The salaries of the examiners range from $1,200 to $2,000 per annum; 
the salary of the appraiser is $3,000 per annum. 

The appraiser is, in my opinion, responsible for the doings of his 
subordinates. 

13. I know of no evidence that any Government officials in the con¬ 
sular department or elsewhere have assisted, or consented to, or con¬ 
nived at the presentation to the appraisers of false evidence of foreign 
value. 

14. If false values have been habitually and systematically reported 
by the appraiser to the collector, it would indicate, in my opinion, 
dereliction of duty and probably dishonesty on the part of the appraiser. 

I am not aware of any money having been paid to American officials 
to get false reports of dutiable value, nor do I know of a corruption 
fund. 

15. If there have been false valuations from bribery or venality, I 
know of no reason, as long as ad valorem duty is imposed, why there 
would not be the same in the future. 

16. In my opinion a change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
have a tendency to diminish bribery, if there has been bribery, and, in 
consequence, would be a benefit to the revenue. I think specific rates 
could be applied to all textile fabrics. 

• 17. I have no knowledge of any increase of false reports by the ap¬ 

praisers since the repeal of the “moiety law” and other customs regu¬ 
lations in 1874. 

18. In my opinion, it would be impracticable for the American con¬ 
sular officers in any of the American consular districts in Europe or 
elsewhere to personally examine articles to be shipped from thence to 
the American ports, and to verify the correctness of invoiced values. 

I think it very probable that foreign governments would not abstain 
from complaints to this Government if American consuls made vexatious 
delays in examining values and certifying invoices. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 481 


Invoices received from ’London and elsewhere in England (with few 
exceptions) have printed on the consular certificates, “Received fee, 
$2.50,F or “Received fee for this certificate, $2.50;” and I am of the 
opinion that our consuls in England exact a fee of $2.50 for certifying 
each and every invoice. The shippers in England, however, charge 
on the invoices for “consuls’ fees” sums varying in amount from 10 
shillings 4 pence to 17 shillings. 

19. In my opinion, a change of the law in the ascertainment of the 
dutiable value would cause delay and inconvenience to the importer 
without material benefit to the Government. 

20. The rates of duty on wool since 1800 have been as follows: 

Act March 2, 1801, (to take effect on and after April 1,1801:) Valued 
at last port from whence exported to the United States at less than 18 
cents per pound, 5 per cent, ad valorem; exceeding 18 cents per pound 
and not exceed rig 24 cents per pound, 3 cents per pound; exceeding 
24 cents per pound, 9 cents per pound. 

Act June 30, 1804, (to take effect on and after July 1, 1864:) Valued 
at last port from whence exported to the United States, exclusive of 
charges in such port, at 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per pound; 
exceeding 12 cents and not exceeding 24 cents per pound, 6 cents per 
pound; exceeding 24 cents and not exceeding 32 cents per pound, 10 
cents per pound and 11 per cent.; exceeding 32 cents per pound, 12 
cents per pound and 10 per cent.; if imported scoured, in lieu of the 
foregoing, three times the amount of such duties. 

Act March 2, 1S67, (to take effect on the passage of the act:) Wool 
divided, for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon, into 
three classes: Class 1, clothing-wools; class 2, combing wools; class 3, 
carpet-wools: 

Class 1.—Valued at last port from whence exported to the United 
States, exclusive of charges in such port, at 32 cents or less per pound, 
10 cents per pound and 11 per cent.; exceeding 32 cents per pound, 12 
cents per pound and 10 per cent.; if imported washed, twice the amount 
of duty to which it would be subjected if imported unwashed; if im¬ 
ported scoured, three times the amount of duty to which it would be 
subjected if imported unwashed. 

Class 2. —Valued at last port from whence exported to the United States, 
exclusive of charges in such port, at 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents 
per pound and 11 per cent.; exceeding 32 cents per pound, 12 cents per 
pound and 10 per cent.; if imported scoured, three times the amount of 
duty to which it would be subjected if imported unwashed. 

Class 3.—Valued at last port from whence exported to the United 
States, exclusive of charges in such port, at 12 cents or less per pound, 
3 cents per pound; exceeding 12 cents per pound, 6 cents per pound; 
if imported scoured, three times the amount of duty to which it would 
be subjected if imported unwashek. 

Act June 6, 1872, (to take effect on and after August 1, 1872,) re¬ 
duced the duty 10 per cent., being 90 per cent, of the several rates of 
duty then levied. 

Act March 3, 1875, (to take effect on the passage of the act,) repealed 
the 10 per cent, reduction, the rates remaining the same as provided for 
in act March 2, 1867. 

Act March 3, 1883, (to take effect on and after July 1, 1883.) Wool 
divided for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon, into 
31 A 


482 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


three classes: Class 1, clothing-wools; class 2, combing wools; class 3, 
carpet-wools. 

Class 1.—Valued at last port whence exported to the United States, 
excluding charges in such port, at 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents 
per pound; exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound; if im¬ 
ported washed, twice the amount of duty to which it would be subjected 
if imported unwashed; if imported scoured, three times the amount of 
duty to which it would be subjected if imported unwashed. 

Class 2.—Valued at last port whence exported to the United States, 
excluding charges in such port, at 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents 
per pound; exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound; if im¬ 
ported scoured, three times the amount of duty to which it would be 
subjected if imported unwashed. 

Class 3.—Valued at last port whence exported to the United States, 
excluding charges in such port, at 12 cents or less per pound, 2) cents 
per pound; exceeding 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound; if im¬ 
ported scoured, three times the amount of duty to which it would be 
subjected if imported unwashed. 

I have not the information at hand which would enable me to give a 
careful and accurate analysis of the history of the working of the com¬ 
plicated rates on wool that are now in force. 

21. I do not believe that a practice prevails at this port of the pay¬ 
ment of money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors of baggage 
for any purpose whatever. If such a practice does exist, it seems to me 
that a system of espionage and prompt removal and punishment of the 
offenders would prevent future transgressions of the law. 

22. As I have no knowledge of any evidence that the Treasury has 
failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by the law, I am unable to 
answer. 

23. I am of the opinion that the revenue laws have been enforced at 
this port. 

24. I am unable to answer. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

M. A. MUNROE, 

Deputy Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 46. 

JOHN L. SWIFT—Appointed Deputy Collector April 1, 1867; July 10, 1874; and 

May 22, 1882. • 

Custom-House, Boston, Mass., 

Collector's Office, October 3, 1885. 

Sir: During my vacation your “confidential circular,” dated Sep¬ 
tember 9 last, reached this office, and circumstances since my return 
have prevented that attention to its contents which its large range of 
inquiry would seem to demand. My duties as a deputy collector at this 
port are mainly confined to the supervision of the marine department, 
record-rooms, and statistical work. From my location in the building, 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 483 


many oaths to papers are taken before me, and a large number of per¬ 
mits come to my desk for final signature, but the casting of rates of duty, 
the immediate examination of invoices, and of documents relative to 
rates, measurements, and weights, are not within my sphere of duty. 
Having no knowledge whatever, directly or indirectly, of any neglect 
in the certification of invoices, of any false valuation of merchandise, or 
of collusion with shippers or importers, I respectfully suggest that 
there is nothing of official value for me to communicate upon the first 
seventeen questions of the circular addressed to me. My observation, 
from an extended term in the customs service, has led to a strong gen¬ 
eral conviction that the simplification of the rates of duty on imported 
merchandise is one of the chief needs of the customs service at this time. 
Constant change and new complications in the laws derange business 
methods and confuse legitimate commercial transactions; therefore, in 
my judgment, the proposition of Query 18, as to the practicability, 
in large American consular districts, for American consular agents to 
verify the correctness of invoice values, if not impracticable, is not de¬ 
sirably; nor would it be to the benefit of commerce, nor to the advan¬ 
tage of the customs revenue. Foreign verification and appraisement by 
experts, to be thorough, would cause great inconvenience and delay in 
the shipments of merchandise, and would embarrass the carriers who are 
advertised to sail on stated dates, and, in my opinion, the complaints 
would be general against such a system. I should think that under such 
a practice there would be greater liability for increased temptation to vio¬ 
late the revenue laws by undervaluation, by preference in examination 
of merchandise, and by inducements to connive with the foreign ship¬ 
pers than now exists. The distance of the agent from home control and 
supervision would add to this opportunity to defraud, and the system 
would aggravate rather than lessen the evils it sought to cure. 

Query 19.—If the executive and judicial powers are not sufficient to 
sustain the collector in justly ascertaining the dutiable value of mer¬ 
chandise imported, it is not only desirable, but very essential, in my 
opinion, that such authority should be conferred by law, so that the 
representative of the Government would be able to meet promptly any 
attempts to evade the revenue laws by undervaluation. 

Query 20.—The tariff rates of duty on wool since the year 1860 have 
been: 

Act of March 2, 1861: Value less than 18 cents per pound, 5 per 
cent, ad valorem; value 18 cents to 24 cents per pound, 3 cents per 
pound; value over 24 cents per pound, 9 cents per pound; mixed to 
reduce value to 18 cents per pound or less to evade duty, 9 cents per 
pound; on sheepskins, washed or unwashed, 15 per cent. 

Act of June 30, 1864 : Value 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per 
pound; value 12 cents to 24 cents per pound, 6 cents per pound; value 
24 cents to 32 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent.; over 
32 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent.; mixed to 
reduce value and evade duty, highest duty; sheepskins, washed or un¬ 
washed, 20 per cent. 

Act of March 2, 1867: Class 1—Clothing, unwashed: Value 32 cents 
or less per pound, 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent.; over 32 cents 
per pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent. Class 2—Combing: 
Value 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent.; 
over 32 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent. Class 3— 
Carpet: Value 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per pound j over 12 


484 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


cents per pound, 6 cents per pound. Class 1, washed, double duty; 
all classes, scoured, treble duty; sheepskins, washed or unwashed, 30 
per cent. 

Acts of June 6, 1872, and June 22, 1874: Same as act of March 2, 
1867, with a deduction of 10 per cent, from the several rates of duty. 

Act of March 3, 1875: Several rates of duty under act of March 2, 
1867, restored. 

Act of March 2, 1883: Class 1—Clothing, unwashed: Value 30 cents 
or less per pound, 10 cents per pound; exceeding 30 cents per pound, 
12 cents per pound. Class 2—Combing: Value 30 cents or less per pound, 
10 cents per pound; exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound. 
Class 3—Carpet: Value 12 cents or less per pound, 21 cents per pound; 
exceeding 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound. Class 1, washed, 
double duty; all classes, scoured, treble duty; on the skin, washed or 
unwashed, same as other wool. 

I am unable, from any practical experience, to present an opinion 
that would be of any special value in accomplishing the apparent de¬ 
sired purpose of the query relating to the workings of the various tariff 
rates on wool. 

To Question 21, with reference to “passing baggage,” I respectfully 
answer that no such practice is known to me as that of illicit fees or 
perquisites in forwarding by preference baggage, or neglecting to col¬ 
lect the revenue on dutiable articles which it may contain. 

In reply to Query 22, I have to say that in all cases within my knowl¬ 
edge, where there has been petty smuggling by vessels or attempts on 
a large scale to evade the full revenue liable to collection, the occasion 
of such efforts at fraud has been that the rate of duty has been so great 
that the risk of detection has been taken for private gain. Exceptional 
cases of avoiding duties upon articles of value that can be easily con¬ 
cealed for purposes of smuggling do not affect the recognized fact that 
high rates of duty inevitably lead to schemes against the revenue. 

Upon Questions 22 and 23, from absolute lack of knowledge, I have 
no information to impart. 

Finally, permit me to say that while there may have been, as there 
is always likely to be, individual cases of irregularity, of carelessless, of 
negligence, and of impropriety connected with the customs service, my 
candid judgment, from long experience, compels me to say that no sys¬ 
tematic effort to collude with importers by accepting false weights, 
false measures, or false appraisements, or in any other manner, exists at 
this port. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN L. SWIFT, 

Deputy Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 485 


No. 47. 

DANIEL HALL—Appointed Naval Officer April 26, 1877. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 

Naval Office , September 7, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your printed 
letter of the 27th ultimo, marked “strictly confidential,” making cer¬ 
tain inquiries touching custom-house affairs, questions of the tariff, &c. 

I hereby submit replies to the same, answering the inquiries seriatim , 
so far as my official knowledge and experience enable me to do so: 

1. I know of no evidence that the rates of duty prescribed by law 
have not been within the last few years duly levied and collected. 

2. I know of no evidence that on articles upon which the law levies 
purely specific rates the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has 
not been collected. 

3. Till within the last few weeks, in the usual course of custom-house 
business at this port, the measurements of textile fabrics have been made 
by the appraisers, and the requisite calculations as to quantity made by 
them and reported to the collector and naval officer. These computa¬ 
tions have not usually been revised in full in the collector’s office (as I 
understand) or in the naval office, although important extensions of 
prices, quantities, &c., have been revised. Within a few weeks past a 
different practice has been instituted. The appraisers now report the 
lineal measurements of lengths and widths, but not square yards, to the 
collector and naval officer. With these elements or data, the calculations 
are made in the collector’s office and naval office, and the results being 
compared with the invoice, the invoiced measurements are thus verified 
and corrected. 

4. I know of no evidence of any such collusion as is here referred to. 
At the same time, charges of such collusion have been made, though 
not often at this port, and it is obvious that opportunities for such col¬ 
lusion exist, and should be shut off as completely as possible. To that 
end, in my opinion, some changes might be made in the system of order¬ 
ing up goods for examination which would practically make this col¬ 
lusion impossible. For example, the naval officer might be authorized 
to order up additional packages, or change the designation of packages 
ordered by the collector, and either the packages ordered up by the 
naval officer or collector, or both, might be designated by lot. I hold 
that in custom-house business, wherever a door is left open to fraud, 
somebody will be sure to enter in. The only safe course for the Govern¬ 
ment is to leave none open, or to close all that can be closed. 

5. There is no evidence within my knowledge of false or incompetent 
weighing or measuring at this port. I have sometimes, however, had 
occasion to object to weighing and taring as inadequate. Sometimes, 
upon my suggestion, additional weighing or measuring and taring has 
foeen made, but oftener I have been met by the suggestion, probably 
truthful, that those duties have been performed as fully as the force in 
that department would admit. 

6. The regular course of my official duties has not brought me into 
any connection with suits against collectors, and I have no data upon 
which to answer the inquiries here propounded. 

7. I have none but the most casual means, and those derived only 
from my general reading, of knowing the state of things at New York 
in this respect. 


486 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


8. For the same reason, I cannot answer this interrogatory. 

9. Nor this. 

10. I suppose this question to be designed chiefly, if not exclusively, 
for the appraiser’s department. I know, however, that much confusion, 
doubt, and conflict of opinion have existed, and do still exist, in the 
appraiser’s department respecting the elements of dutiable value, de¬ 
pendent upon the construction of section 7 of the tariff act of March 3, 
1883. The decisions of the Treasury Department upon the construction 
of this section have been various and conflicting, and questions are even 
now constantly arising which do not appear to have been authoritatively 
settled. 

11. I suppose this inquiry to be addressed exclusively to the appraiser’s 
department. 

12. And this also. 

13. I am unable to say. 

14. I have no reason, from all my knowledge on the subject, to believe 
that any failure to collect full amounts of duty has come generally of 
dishonesty on the part of Treasury or customs officials, or has been 
accompanied by their guilty knowledge. I cannot answer the last two 
inquiries. 

15. If such frauds have been committed, I know of no reason to think 
that similar corrupt aud venal influences are not now brought to bear, 
or to doubt that they will be as successful in the future as in the past, 
except so far as they may be prevented by additional laws, or by more 
stringent measures and additional vigilance in enforcing the laws that 
now exist. 

16. This is a very broad and important question. I should say, in 
brief, that a change from ad valorem to specific rates, in respect to some 
classes of goods, would be a benefit to the revenue and help to diminish 
the tendency to bribery and corruption. But I have never been able to 
see how specific rates alone could be applied to advantage, and with 
justice also, to all textile fabrics. It seems to me that the double stand¬ 
ard alone can be applied to this class of goods and preserve the ad valo¬ 
rem principle, which should enter to some extent into the adjustments 
of the tariff. Specific duties are simpler of application and easier to 
administer, but not, in most cases, so just as ad valorem. 

17. No, I see no reason to believe they have been. 

18. I should think the personal examination by consular agents of 
articles to be shipped to this country from large foreign ports would be 
impracticable, and that foreign governments would be quite likely to 
take exceptions to vexatious delays so caused. I do not know in which 
consular districts American consular officers could ascertain and report 
true invoice values more safely and surely than they do now. 

19. I think not. 

20. I presume that this question is addressed especially to the ap- 
prai ser’ s department. 

21. I think it is believed by many that such a practice exists in New 
York. I do not think such an impression prevails in regard to Boston, 
nor do I think such a practice prevails here to any considerable extent. 
I must, however, express my belief that customs inspectors of baggage 
do not perform their duties with sufficient and with constant and per¬ 
sistent thoroughness. In the routine of business a laxity and relaxation 
of vigilance in such matters grow up, and a constant renewal of effort 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 487 


and increased safeguards are required to secure a proper discharge of 
this important duty. 

22. I think not. 

23. I do not know to what, if any, degree such a failure has taken 
place in New York, but I do not think that statement would be true in 
the same sense if applied to Boston or other large Atlantic ports. There 
are obvious reasons why such a failure might be more liable to happen 
in New York than elsewhere, among which may be specified the great 
amount and hurry and confusion of its business, its large numbers of 
importers of foreign birth, its system of having merchandise consigned 
by manufacturers abroad to their own agents in New York, &c. 

24. If such practices have prevailed, I know of no reason why the 
persons or officials concerned have not been brought to judgment and 
punishment. Anybody connected with the customs service of the Gov¬ 
ernment, if he should have any definite knowledge or suspicion of wrong¬ 
doings such as are suggested in your letter and inquiries, would obvi¬ 
ously be guilty of the gravest dereliction of duty if he did not promptly 
make them known and do all in his power to bring the offenders to 
exposure and punishment. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

DANIEL HALL, 

Naval Officer, 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 48. 


ADIN B. UNDERWOOD—Appointed Surveyor August 25, 1865. 

Custom-House, Boston, Mass., 
Surveyor's Office , September 4, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to reply to the confidential communication of 
the Department of the 27th instant, duly received, that, as the duty of 
the surveyor of customs is chiefly confined to the superintendence and 
direction of the out door officers of customs, he has no official informa¬ 
tion on the subjects embraced in most of the interrogatories contained 
in the communication. Upon the few on which this office has informa¬ 
tion, I have the honor to report as follows: 

Interrogatory 4.—I have been informed, and believe, that during the 
administration of Collector Simmons at this port frauds on the revenue 
were committed by ordering bogus packages sent to the appraisers and 
valuable packages of merchandise delivered by the inspector on fraud¬ 
ulent and irregular permits. I am informed that Collector Beard, and 
I think also Special Agent Bingham, found evidence of these frauds, 
some of which I have seen, but which are not in my possession. 

If the Department were to require, by regulation, that at ports where 
there are surveyors all permits for delivery of merchandise shall be 
addressed to him, be scrutinized by his office before being transmitted 
to the inspectors, and, on return by them, to be retained in his office, 
frauds like those referred to could not possibly occur. In that case the 
permits were returned to the collector’s office, from whose files they were 
stolen by some collusion in that office. 



488 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Interrogatory 5.—I believe the weighing and measuring of merchan¬ 
dise at this port is, as a rule, fairly and adequately done, with proper 
protection to the interests of the Government. 

Importers are constantly complaining to this office and the collectors 
that our weighers do not give them full weights, and not such as buyers 
and sellers give to each other. In this respect I believe their statements 
are true. The law, however, does not require equitable weighing sim¬ 
ply, but strict weighing of merchandise just as it is landed on the 
wharf, without any discretion on our part. In this connection, I beg to 
state that no regulation or custom here requires the surveyor to report 
to the collector or the Department the character and qualifications of 
the weighers whom he is required to employ and direct in their work, 
and for whose conduct he is practically responsible. Were there such 
a regulation, I believe he could better enforce more satisfactory results 
from the weighers (who do all the measuring) while in the performance 
of their proper duties. 

Interrogatory 21.—I believe the practice does not prevail at this port 
of the payment of money by arriving passengers to the inspectors to 
facilitate the delivery of baggage, which is allowed to prevail at other 
ports. In my long service in this office I have made special efforts to 
prevent any corruption of the officers in this manner; I think, too, with 
success. If a similar regulation for the inspectors were to be made by 
the Department as I recommend for the weighers, it would give the 
surveyor an authoritative control over the inspectors, which he does not 
now possess, and which would be healthy. 

Interrogatory 22.—As far as I know, the rate of duty has not contributed 
to cause smuggling of passengers’ baggage, but the loose definition of 
wearing-apparel entitled to free entry and the want of a limit of amount. 
I think, if the law prescribed that wearing-apparel should actually and 
substantially have been worn by the passenger, and should not exceed 
a certain amount in value, that a good deal of smuggling of new cloth¬ 
ing, on commissions and as presents for friends, &c., which is now car¬ 
ried on to a greater or less extent, would be prevented. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 


Hon. 


A. B. UNDERWOOD, 

Surveyor. 

Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


No. 49. 

HENRY S. BRIGGS—Appointed United States General Appraiser April 11, 1872. 

Office of the Board of U. S. General Appraisers, 
Corner of Washington and Hubert Streets, 

New York, October 8, 1885. 

Sir : In transmitting herewith answers to the inquiries referred to 
me under Department letter dated August 27, 1885, I beg leave to 
state, in explanation of the great delay, that at the time of the receipt 
of the inquiries, and for some time subsequent, I was engaged at this 
port in holding reappraisements, and that since that time my time has 
been so much occupied, including a large portion outside of office hours, 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 489 


in official duty, that I have not been able to give suitable attention to 
the subject of the inquiries without postponing or omitting other duties. 

I regret if, in the opionion of the Department, I have erred in con¬ 
sidering that my opinion on the subject of the inquiries was not so im¬ 
portant as the attention to other important duties. 

Very respectfully, 

HENBY S. BKIGGS, 

United States General Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Port of Boston, Mass., 

Office of U. S. General Appraiser , October 5, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to submit such replies as limited opportunity 
to prepare them enables me to make to twenty-four inquiries referred 
to me by the Department, under date August 27, 1885, viz: 

Inquiry 1.—I have no reason to suppose that there has been any in¬ 
tentional failure or neglect on the part of collectors to assess duty 
according to their understanding of the meaning of the statutes, nor 
that errors of judgment as to the classification for duty have resulted 
in very serious los^ to the revenue. 

Inquiry 2.—I have no evidence that there has been failure in the cus¬ 
toms districts that have come under my observation to ascertain what 
duties have accrued under specific rates, nor that collectors have failed 
to assess and collect such as have been ascertained. 

Inquiry 3.—It is altogether impracticable, with the present force of 
openers and packers, to test by actual measurement invoice quantities 
of textile fabrics, and such tests are only made when there is reason to 
suspect fraud or error. By long familiarity in the inspection and ex¬ 
amination of such goods, both examiners and openers become expert in 
estimating approximately the number of yards in a piece. 

Inquiry 4.—I have no evidence of any such collusion which has oc¬ 
curred within the last few years. 

Inquiry 5.—So much of my time since the organization of the board 
of general appraisers, in 1877, has been occupied in consideration of 
questions of classification and valuation, that it has been impracticable 
to give but very little personal attention to the practical weighing and 
measuring of merchandise. My investigations have been limited to 
inquiries and comparisons of the weighers’ and gaugers’ and measurers’ 
returns with invoice specifications. Some years since, in the course of 
these examinations, I was led to suspect, from the identity of the 
weighers’ returns of tin-plates in large quantities with the invoice, in 
some cases estimated quantities, that the quantities returned had not 
been ascertained by actual weighing. 

Inquiry 6.—I think there is need of a radical change in the provisions 
of law relating to questions of classification, which are now the subject 
of protest and appeal, After much consideration of the subject, I am 
satisfied that if these questions were determined by appraising officers 
instead of by collectors, there would be fewer appeals, and, in case of 
appeal, the "Department would be enabled to obtain more readily and 
fully the information required for its decisions. This opinion is founded 
on these considerations: that appraising officers have always been re- 


490 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


quired to give these questions careful attention, in order to make their 
reports to the collectors in conformity with the Treasury regulations on 
the subject; their duties as valuers of merchandise gives them a much 
more thorough knowledge of its character and quality and the relations 
of one kind to another. Under the present system, they give their un¬ 
divided time and attention to these two subjects, valuation and classifi¬ 
cation, and can examine each with much greater care than can collec¬ 
tors, so much of whose attention is necessarily occupied with many other 
subjects entirely foreign to this of classification. As I understand it, 
the practice now is for the Department to submit appeals to the collec¬ 
tors from whose ports they are received for special reports, then for 
the collectors to call upon the appraisers for special reports, then for 
these reports to be submitted to collectors and appraisers of other prin¬ 
cipal ports for their reports. At one time it was not an uncommon 
practice to refer such questions to the board of general appraisers for 
investigation and report. Although the discontinuance of this practice 
may imply a discontinuance of it, I respectfully refer to the fact that, 
under existing regulations and instructions of the Department, a large 
part of the time of these officers is devoted to the consideration of these 
questions. The duty is imposed by article 1399 of the “Regulations” 
of 18S4, and in the Department circular (Synopsis, 3281) cited in that 
article it is declared to be one of the principal duties to secure uniform¬ 
ity in classifications. Whether the burdens of the Department could in 
any appreciable degree be lightened, or the determination of appeals 
facilitated, by the assistance of the board as now constituted, or by an 
increase of the number of its members, I am sure that some such board, 
composed of members who could give adequate attention to this sub 
ject, should be provided. If appellants were to understand that the 
Department 7 s decisions would not be made until after a report from 
such a board and upon evidence and arguments thereto submitted, and 
thence forwarded to the Department (whenever required) in connec¬ 
tion with its report, the final action would be facilitated. 

I have no means of knowing the number of “collectors 7 suits 77 pend¬ 
ing in the courts other than inquiry of the district attorneys, to whom I 
presume a similar inquiry has been addressed and it appears to me 
that mo3t of the other points embraced in this inquiry lie within the 
province of the offices of the courts. I may observe, however, in re¬ 
spect to the last point, that some observation and information has led to 
the opinion that in many instances the interests of the Government 
have been prejudiced by the failure .of the acting attorneys who con¬ 
duct the trials to properly present the Governments case. The com¬ 
plexity of the questions growing out of the subject of classification is so 
great, and of such uncongenial character to such as do not make it a 
specialty, that it is not surprising, perhaps, that an ordinary case does 
not secure a more careful preparation than in many cases appears to 
have been made—a preparation indispensable to an intelligent and suc¬ 
cessful trial. I think the interest of the revenue would be greatly pro- 
ir >ted by the appointment of one or more special attorneys, whose 
special duties should be the preparation for trial .and management in 
the courts of all cases involving questions relating to the administration 
of the customs laws. 

Inquiry 7.—My experience in the matter of reappraisements enables 
me to specify manufactures of silk as a class of articles on which there 
can be no doubt that the Department has for a long time failed to col- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 491 


lect the entire amount of duty to which such goods are subject. While 
the evidence of failure cannot be reasonably controverted, in the judg¬ 
ment of those who are most competent to give a true verdict it is, in 
fact , controverted whenever, on reappraisement, a merchant sits as 
judge who is particeps criminus , in so far as he has failed to pay the 
full amounts of duty on similar goods imported by himself. How suc¬ 
cessfully it is controverted in such cases must depend upon how thor¬ 
oughly the collector is able to inform himself as umpire between the 
merchant and general appraisers. 

Inquiry 8.—How has the failure come about! By the difficulty, the 
impracticability, if not impossibility, of establishing a market value for 
the particular varieties of goods, the importation of which is wholly 
upon consignments by the foreign manufacturers and owners, and, sec¬ 
ondly, by the lack of entire confidence in estimates of the cost of manufacture, 
furnished by reports of experts from the country of manufacture. An¬ 
other prominent cause of failure has already been noticed in my remarks 
under the preceding inquiry. I have no evidence or information which 
would justify the opinion that there has been, at least within a recent 
period, either indolence or dishonesty. I have an impression, founded 
on observation rather than the opinion founded on positive knowledge, 
that one of the examiners in the silk department at New York, is not 
so competent as the incumbent of such a place ought to be. 

Inquiry 9.—I have no knowledge which enables me to make intelli¬ 
gent answer to this inquiry. 

Inquiry 10.—So far as this inquiry may relate to the cost of manufacture 
as a standard by which dutiable value is to be fixed, I have already 
adverted to a doubt existing among those I believe to be entirely 
conscientious and competent appraising officers, merchant appraisers 
included, as to the safety, with a due regard to a just and equitable val¬ 
uation, of basing such valuation solely on the estimates of experts, about 
whom so little is known. 

If under this tenth inquiry it is intended to invite consideration of 
the sufficiency of the definitions of the statutes and the instructions of 
the Department with respect to what constitutes market values and what 
the methods for the ascertainment of it, I might with propriety refer to 
an unpublished ruling of the Department, about eighteen months since, 
upon a question which arose on reappraisement at the port of Boston of 
certain worsted yarns, which ruling appears to me to involve a danger¬ 
ous principle. There being a disagreement between the merchant and 
general appraiser, the collector was instructed, with respect to his duty 
as umpire, that he might consider the price at which merchandise was 
actually sold in good faith to'American purchasers for the American 
market to be a market value on which duty might be assessed, although 
such price was lower than any prices at which such goods had been sold 
to, or could be purchased by, any otfier purchaser, either for the home 
market or for any country other than the United States. 

Inquiry 11.—I have no data from which only can an intelligent answer 
be given to this inquiry. 

Inquiry 12.—It seems to me that the examiner is primarily responsible 
for all returns of value, except in cases where he has been directly in¬ 
structed by some superior appraising officer, or some other officer repre¬ 
senting the Department, who is supposed to be vested with special 
authority by the head of the Department to supervise all matters relating 
to the administration of the customs laws. I have no reason to believe 


492 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


that the valuations of any appraising officer now in office are designedly 
false, but think that such errors as occur are mistakes of incompetency 
or ignorance. Such mistakes on the part of examiners are very liable 
to be propagated through the superior officers, for it is obvious that in 
the principal ports it is altogether impracticable for principal or as¬ 
sistant appraisers to scrutinize each act of the examiner, or even a very 
considerable part of the details of his routine duty. Such scrutiny 
would impose upon the appraiser the duty, in some cases, of a score of 
examiners, in addition to the other responsible duties of liis office. 

If the scope of this inquiry was intended to include ports other than 
New York, it is due that I should observe that at Boston the only prin¬ 
cipal appraiser now in office and one of the two assistant appraisers 
have given much personal attention to the examination of merchandise 
for the valuations which they certify. It should be borne in mind, how¬ 
ever, that much of the attention of the principal appraiser is required 
to be given to questions of classification. 

Inquiry 13.—The only instance of what I consider assistance or con¬ 
nivance in false valuations on the part of consular officers occurred sev¬ 
eral years since in the certification of the values of certain marble im¬ 
ported into Boston from Carrara, Italy, by a consul who was finally 
superseded. 

Inquiries 14 and 15.—I have no such positive and definite knowledge 
on the subject of these two inquiries as would justify my undertaking 
to give information to the Department, unless exception is made in the 
case of an examiner of earthenware at New York, who has been re¬ 
moved under the administration of the present appraiser. 

Inquiry 16.—It seems obvious that the opportunity , and so the tendency , 
to bribery would be very materially diminished by the substitution of 
specific for ad valorem rates of duty. The ascertainment of weights 
and measures is not subject to the honest errors of judgment and va¬ 
riance in the degree of skill among experts that are variable elements 
affecting the results in appraisements. It is also apparent that the 
accuracy and honesty of officers charged with the ascertainment of 
quantities can be much more easily inspected and tested than the 
methods and the conclusions of appraising officers. 

With respect to the application of specific rates of textile fabrics, 
much can be offered in its favor, and yet there seems to be almost in¬ 
superable objections in respect to some kinds of fabrics. With respect 
to most it may be said that any practical standard or unit of quantity 
would operate to exclude from importation the coarser and cheaper 
varieties of many classes of fabrics. The present compound rates on 
woollen manufactures have received much, it seems to me, merited criti¬ 
cism for the effect in compelling consumers of the coarser grades of 
clothing materials and articles to pay a much larger percentage of tax 
than the consumers of finer and ffiore costly goods. With respect to 
manufactures of silk, while it might be for the real interests of the con¬ 
sumers of such goods to practically put it out of their power to pro¬ 
cure the counterfeits now imposed upon them, it may, perhaps, be fairly 
assumed that the exclusion of the foreign manufacture would result in 
the imposition of si milar adulterations, at even higher prices, by domestic 
manufacturers. The ground of complaint with respect to wools might 
to a considerable extent be removed by the substitution of a rate regu¬ 
lated by the weight per square yard. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 493 


With respect to a prolific source of difficulty under existing laws, viz., 
the valuation of cotton embroideries, recent investigation and partici¬ 
pation in reappraisements in New York have convinced me that a rate 
of duty based on numbers of stitches should be substituted for the ad 
valorem rate. 

Inquiry 17.—I have no doubt that the removal of the stimulus of the 
“ moiety law” has resulted in a diminution of the amount of duties col¬ 
lected. The removal must necessarily tend to relax vigilance and care¬ 
fulness on the part of honest importers and caution on the part of in¬ 
tentional violators of the customs laws. 

I do not intend that the expression of an opinion respecting the effect 
of the repeal, made in conformity with the request of Department let¬ 
ter, should carry the inference that I should have recommended a res¬ 
toration of the “moiety law” in case an opinion on that point had been 
invited. 

Inquiry 18.—I do not see how the efficiency of the consular offices 
with respect to the certification of invoices and the investigation as to 
the values which are certified can be materially increased without very 
considerable increase of the number of subordinate offices at the con¬ 
sulates ; nor that very reliable information respecting the values of com¬ 
modities, which vary materially in respect to qualities of any given 
general character, can be furnished, except by the employment of a class 
of experts corresponding to the examiners in the appraiser’s department 
who make the examination after importation. 

Inquiry 19. I am somewhat in doubt whether by the use of the term 
“dutiable values” it is intended to recognize a distinction between such 
value and “market value,” which distinction was clearly made by the 
law as it stood up to the enactment of the act of March 3, 1883, a dis¬ 
tinction which under the present law can only hold with respect to 
such merchandise as is made for and consigned by the manufacturers 
to the United States only, having no sale in the country of manufacture 
and no market value there. With respect to such merchandise, not only 
the Department and the courts, but the statute itself, has provided one 
of the methods by which a value on the assessment of duty may be ar¬ 
rived at. 

With respect to such classes of merchandise, appraising officers should 
be subject to instructions from the Treasury Department but with re¬ 
spect to the determination of questions of market value as defined by the 
courts and the Department, I thiuk that any deviation from the prin¬ 
ciple that has been recognized and established by repeated decisions 
and rulings, that the action of appraisers should be independent and 
final, would result in inextricable and disastrous confusion and uncer¬ 
tainty in respect to the assessment of ad valorem duties. 

The remedy for the possible evil arising from incompetency or un¬ 
faithfulness in appraising officers is sufficient in the power to remove 
such officers. 

Inquiry 20.—Presuming that this inquiry has been addressed to some 
who have given special attention to the subject embraced in it, I have 
not undertaken to make a particular investigation, without which I 
could not make an intelligent answer. My attention having been di¬ 
rected, however, during visits to some of the customs districts on the 
Mexican frontier, to the carpet-wools produced in that country, and 
which are practically prohibited by their classification with second- 
class wools, by reason of a very slight admixture of merino blood, 


494 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


although costing less than 12 cents per pound, and being fit only for 
carpet manufacture, I would recommend a relaxation of the rule with 
respect to classification by race whenever its application would affect 
wool of the quality I have described. 

Inquiry 21.—It is generally believed, and I think, with good cause, 
that the practice referred to in this inquiry has for a long time prevailed 
at the port of New York. I do not think it has prevailed at Boston. 
In respect to other ports, I have had no special opportunities for knowl¬ 
edge on the subject. Two expedients for the remedy of the evil are 
suggested—first, providing a compensation for the examining officers so 
ample as to remove the inducements furnished by petty bribes, as well 
as to secure the services of persons not susceptible to any such induce¬ 
ments; second, the absolute forfeiture of all the baggage of persons 
making false declarations, with a provision for relief, in the discretion 
of the Secretary, whenever it shall be satisfactorily shown that the mis¬ 
representations have resulted from innocent mistakes rather than from 
fraudulent intent. 

Inquiry 22.—In my opinion, any rate of duty which is high enough 
to protect domestic manufacturers is sufficient to make inducement for 
undervaluation, whether it be 20 per cent, on non-enumerated manu¬ 
factures, 35 per cent, on cottons, 40 per cent, on woollens, or 50 per 
cent, on silk. If a reduction in either of these cases to the extent of 10 
per cent, would cease to protect, there would be no great inducement 
for an undervaluation of the foreign product to greater extent than 10 
per cent. 

Inquiry 23.—I think not. 

Inquiry 24.—I do not know. 

Very respectfully, 

HENRY S. BRIGGS, 

United States General Appraiser . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 50. 

CHAS. S. SOULE—Appointed Examiner May 29, 1883. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 2, 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of your circular of August 
27, containing twenty-four questions, relative to the administration of 
the customs laws, to which I am requested to reply as completely as 
possible. 

In reply, I most respectfully beg leave to state that I have been an 
employe in the appraiser’s department since May 23, 1883, as an assist¬ 
ant in the laboratory of the sugar department, and my time has been 
fully occupied with my duties in that department. 

Having had no opportunity of acquainting myself with the subjects 
of your inquiry, I can only reply to but few of the questions propounded. 

Question 1 . —Have no knowledge that the law has not been complied 
with. 

Question 2.—Have no knowledge of any case where the full duty has 
not been collected, as prescribed by Congress. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 495 


Question 3.—The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified 
by weighing and measuring. 

Question 4.—Know of no case wherein a false or bogus package has 
been sent to the appraisers for examination. 

Question 5.—I know of no case of false or incompetent or inadequate 
weighing or measuring on the wharves. 

Questions 6, 7, and 8.—I am not able to answer. 

Question 9.—I know of no false reports of dutiable values made by 
the appraiser to the collector. 

Question 10.—I know of no evidence that would be # of any value. 

Question 11.—I cannot answer. 

Question 12.—The examiner is, in my opinion, primarily and chiefly 
respons'ble, in the usual course of business, for a false return of value 
to the collector. The salary of examiners is from $1,200 to $1,800 per 
annum. At this port, each report of the examiner is carefully scrutin¬ 
ized by the appraiser before receiving his indorsement. 

Question 13.—I know of no satisfactory evidence that any Government 
officials, in the consular department or elsewhere, have assisted, or con¬ 
sented to, or connived at the presentation to the appraiser of false evi¬ 
dence of foreign values. 

Questions 14 and 15.—I cannot answer. 

Question 16.—Should say that a change from ad valorem to specific 
rates would be a benefit to the revenue and help diminish a tendency 
to bribery. Cannot say as regards specific rates being applied to textile 
fabrics. 

Questions 17 and 18.—I cannot answer. 

Question 19.—Have no knowledge upon which to base an opinion. 

Question 20.—I cannot answer. 

Question 21.—Have no knowledge of the payment of money by arriv¬ 
ing passengers to customs inspectors, but presume such cases have 
occurred. 

Questions 22, 23, and 24.—I am unable to answer. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES S. SOULE, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 51. 

GEORGE C. JOSLIN—Appointed Clerk, Boston, September 17, 18G9; Assistant 
Appraiser October 25, 1871. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 

Appraiser's Office , October 12, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular 
of 9th ultimo, marked “strictly confidential,’ 7 and containing twenty- 
four questions relative to the administration of customs laws, and beg 
leave to submit the following answers: 

1. The rates of duty prescribed by law I believe have been within 
the last few years levied and collected, except in cases where honest 
differences of opinion have arisen between officers of different ports, 
when, until a Department decision was reached, an improper duty may 
have been levied. 



496 ® REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


2. I know of no cases where specific duties are prescribed in which 
the full amount of duties have not been collected. 

3. Textile fabrics are measured by the examiners with yard-stick to 
determine the widths for basis of classification and number of square 
yards, the lengths of pieces usually being taken from the tags on the 
pieces; but measurements of length are frequently made with yard¬ 
stick to guard against fraudulent lengths being marked on the tags. 

4. I have no evidence of any collusion between importers and entry 
clerks or deputy collectors, but have known of cases where special 
agents of the Treasury have claimed that cases have been sent to the 
appraisers for examination which did not represent the balance of the 
invoice, but never heard of their proving collusion with officials at 
this port. 

5. I have never seen or heard anything to lead me to believe that the 
weighing and measuring on the wharves has been improperly performed. 

6. The collectors usually adopt the rates of duty suggested by ap¬ 
praisers who inspect the imported merchandise, and are therefore better 
able to judge what rates are applicable under the law; but the appraisers 
who see the goods are often in doubt what rate to apply, for the reason 
that many paragraphs of the present tariff law are open to two con¬ 
structions, and many conflict with others. This, I think, accounts for 
the numerous protests and appeals to the Department, and for the suits 
brought by the importers against the Government; therefore, in my 
opinion, the present tariff law might be much improved. I have no 
means of knowing how many suits are now pending at the four principal 
ports named. I believe suits might be more speedily disposed of under 
the present system, and see no reason for the creation of any new 
tribunal. 

7. In answering this question I will confine myself to dry-goods, with 
which I am most familiar. The failure to collect the full amount of 
duties due the Government arises from the fact that the plan is fast in¬ 
creasing for foreign manufacturers to establish agents in this country 
and consign to them all the goods they send here, refusing to sell to any 
other buyers in America, even for cash, thereby placing upon apprais¬ 
ing officers the burden of ascertaining the market values, which, in 
many cases, is very difficult. I have no doubt that the failure to find 
the proper dutiable values has in the past been due in part to each of 
the reasons you suggest, viz., ignorance, indolence, and dishonesty on 
the part of some, but cannot believe that the higher class of Treasury 
or customs officers have had guilty knowledge of the returns of such 
dutiable values. 

At the larger ports the local appraisers cannot possibly examine into 
the dutiable value of all imported merchandise, and must of necessity 
depend upon the faithful and efficient work of subordinates, and as a 
result, in case of inefficiency on their part, they certify, honestly them¬ 
selves, to values which should in some cases have been increased. In 
the past, officers have, I know, been appointed to examine goods purely 
on political grounds, when they had no knowledge of the goods which 
they were called upon to examine, (one such case occurred at this port; 
officer since discharged,) and such being the case, it seems to me not 
strange that undervaluations should go undetected and loss result to the 
Government. 

Probably undervaluations are practised at all of the larger ports more 
or less, in a less proportion at this port than others, for the reason that 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 497 


a very large proportion of the merchandise imported here is actually 
purchased. Silk goods are nearly all consigned to agents in New York, 
and are, no doubt, largely undervalued, and when advanced by ap¬ 
praiser the advance often falls in reappraisement on account of the 
manner in which such hearings have been conducted in the past, the 
importers in the line of goods in question all combining and testifying 
against the Government. I have endeavored to cover Questions 8 and 
9 in the above. 

10. There has been for the past two years more or less conflict of 
opinion in regard to elements entering into the dutiable value of goods, 
but little at present. Place, time, and standard are clearly enough de¬ 
fined by the statutes. 

11. I should say that there cannot. 

12. The examiner is primarily responsible. Salaries of examiners at 
this port are from $1,200 to $2,000. Appraisers at this port have always 
paid much attention to matters of value brought to their attention by 
examiners, special agents, and others, and to a great extent supervised 
the work of examiners in their methods of finding dutiable values. 

13. I have no knowledge that any consul or other Government official 
has furnished false evidence of values to appraisers. 

14. I believe that it cannot fairly be said that the failure to collect the 
full amount of duties due the Government has been occasioned by dis¬ 
honesty, although it may have been the case in some instances. 

15. In my opinion, corrupt practices have steadily decreased in the 
past ten years, and may still decrease with strict Department rulings. 

16. Specific rates of duty should be applied, I think, to the fullest 
extent possible, and could be applied to very nearly the whole line of 
textile fabrics. The objections offered by many would be overcome 
and trade soon adapt itself to the new order of things. 

17. I think not. 

18. In the large consular districts I do not think it would be practi¬ 
cable to supply a sufficient number of officers to personally examine 
merchandise to be shipped to this country; in the smaller districts it 
might. Foreign governments would be likely to complain if American 
consuls caused delays in examining values of invoiced goods. The usual 
fee now exacted by our consuls for certifying invoices is 10s. 6(Z., or 
$2.50. 

19. I am firmly of the opinion that dutiable values can only fairly be 
left to be decided by appraisers; importers would complain and suffer 
by delays in receiving their importations if the question of value must 
go to higher authority for decision. 

20. I beg leave to refer you to report of Examiner Dimond on this 
subject. Mr. Appraiser Rice has for a number of years paid special 
attention to this subject, but it is to be regretted that his illness pre¬ 
cludes his being on duty. It has not been my province to study the 
wool question, and I should fail to do it justice. 

21. At this port I believe that the payment of money to officers wbo 
inspect baggage of passengers is not practised at all. i have frequently 
heard it said that at New York such was the practice, and a few years 
since most of our travelling public preferred to land in New York on 
returning from trips abroad rather than Boston, one reason being that 
they had little difficulty in passing their luggage. It can be prevented 
by the enforcement of strict orders from the Department and the pun¬ 
ishment of the guilty when detected. 


498 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


22. Lower rates of duty on many of the lines of goods would unquete- 
tionably lessen the undervaluations and dishonest practices. 

23. The same reasons do not exist to so great an extent at the other 
large ports, and therefore not generally true. 

24. Allowing that such returns have been made, they have been 
made by the officials mostly with honest intent, and no persons other 
than the buyers and sellers knowing the facts, there has been no one 
to complain. It was not owing to intentional neglect, but pressure of 
business prevented me from giving the questions a proper considera¬ 
tion at an earlier day. On account of the death of one appraiser and 
lengthened sickness of the other, our working force has been lessened, 
while the fall business has been heavy. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. C. JOSLIN, 
Assistant Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 52. 

CALEB a. SMITH—Appointed Storekeeper, Boston, May 26, 1879; Examiner July 

1, 1880. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Office , September 20, 1885. 

Honored Sir : In reply to your circular of 9th ultimo, have the 
honor to state that each examiner is an expert only in his own depart¬ 
ment, devoting his time and attention to his immediate duties, and 
therefore unable fully and satisfactorily to answer all your inquiries. 
Can answer only in a general way. My duties are confined to invoices 
of merchandise from West Indies, west coast of Africa, Canada, and 
British Provinces, of great variety. All goods on which the rates are 
specific are easily passed; many others of “ad valorem” there is al¬ 
most always a question, such as animals, beans, pease, casks, calcined 
plaster, old yellow metal, poultry, seal and fish oils, canned mackerel, 
game, hub-blacks, timber, pickets, wood pulp, old rubber, asbestos, 
canned berries, leather, calf-skins, lime, and many others. A merchant 
in July, 1883, wished to import a lot of old yellow sheathing-metal, 
looked over the tariff for rates, and decided it was T. I., new, par. 186— 
all composition metal, of which copper is the component material, 3 cents 
a pound. This he decided to be almost prohibitory. Old yellow metal 
was not mentioned in the tariff. August 3, 1883,* it was ordered to be 
put at 10 per cent.; February 27, 1884, at 20 per cent., at which rate of 
“ad valorem” it remains. Another had a car-load of pease and beans 
from Canada, (they are not mentioned in the tariff,) supposed to be 10 
per cent., as vegetables. The decision was 20 per cent., as garden-seeds. 
How as to split pease?—20 per cent. also. He replies, crude is 10 per 
cent.; manufactured, 20 per cent.; or pease, 10 per cent., as crude; split, 
manufactured, 20 per cent. To-day a merchant asks the duty on canned 
mackerel. The tariff says, “Mackerel, 1 cent per pound;” another 
section says, ‘ ‘ Prepared fish, or preserved, 25 per cent. ’ - I mark 25 per 
cent. He appeals. Also, a similar case in calcined plaster, canned 
berries, &c. A lot of parts of skates, whole, were 45 per cent.; as parts 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 499 


to be put together, the importer claims at 31 cents. Appeals. In 
these and similar cases, continually arising, there would be little or no 
difficulty if the duty was specific instead of “ad valorem.’’ There are 
six steamers a week besides passenger-boats and sailing-vessels from the 
provinces. The duties since the abrogation of the treaty, 1st of July, 
will be greatly increased over any previous year, to the great delight 
of our New England fishermen. With such a variety of merchandise, 
it is quite difficult to get satisfactory prices to base your dutiable value, 
which would be entirely obviated' by specific duties and a simplified 
tariff. 

Have no knowledge of bribery or corruption in any department. 

A specific duty would be a preventative, as a foreign manufacturer 
could not enter them undervaluation as in ad valorem duties. 

Our appraiser, Eice, has always been at his post early and late, and 
knows thoroughly the business of each examiner, and in his (examiner’s) 
absence attends at once to his business, that there may be no unneces¬ 
sary delay. The examiners are devoted to their duties, and attend to 
them as if it was their own business. 

Consular reports are similar to a price-current; they give you a gen¬ 
eral price of the market, but they are not in the market as a merchant 
to buy. As there is always a marked difference between a price asked 
for quotations and a price obtained by an actual sale of merchandise, 
therefore they can only give you an approximate price as to value. 

Specific duties would obviate, in a great measure, the necessity of 
consular reports of merchandise values. 

Your obedient servant, 

CALEB A. SMITH, 

„ United States Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


* No. 53. 

P. AMBROSE YOUNG—Appointed Examiner May 20, 1880. 

Custom-House, Boston, 
Appraiser’s Office , September 25, 1885. 

Sir : Bespectfully referring to your communication of the 9th instant, 
requesting information as to the classification of merchandise and the 
assessment of duties under the present tariff act, I have the honor to 
reply to the several questions contained therein as follows: 

1. On coal-tar colors: There has been a systematic undervaluation of 
this class of merchandise, owing to the high ad valorem duty and the 
great difficulty in proving “true market values,” the manufacturers sell¬ 
ing to consumers in the United States only through their agents. This 
was very clearly shown by the action of the Berlin company in entering 
their manufactures at this port very largely under market values, as 
was shown, after a long and patient investigation by myself, before ad¬ 
vancing the price of the merchandise to “true market value. Upon a 
reappraisement, after incontrovertibly showing the true value of the 
various colors by tests of dyeing upon silk, wool, and cotton, and deter¬ 
mining by chemical analysis their composition and kind, the represent- 



500 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ative of the Berli n company, who came to this country specially to con¬ 
test these cases, was forced to confess to an undervaluation of from 10 
to 50 per cent. Even this amount was not sufficient to bring the price 
of the merchandise to the “true market value,’ 7 although accepted by 
the appellant board, because given under oath, as all subsequent in¬ 
voices. Those immediately following the hearing, as well as up to the 
present period, have shown that the advance in values of from 50 to 100 
per cent., as originally made, was correct. The remedy for this condi¬ 
tion of affairs is a specific duty. 

2. Have no means of knowing that the proper duty is not collected 
where specific rates are applied. This could not occur, in my opinion, 
unless by palpable fraud in the classification as to hind of merchandise 
or in weighing. 

3, 4, 5, and 6. Have no means of becoming acquainted with the method 
of doing the business described by these questions. 

7. I have reason to believe that coal-tar colors and varnishes are un¬ 
dervalued at New York. Merchants here have repeatedly asserted that 
they can get their merchandise through New York at lower rates than 
at Boston; but this statement is hardly susceptible of proof. 

8. The failure has come about, I think, through a lack of harmony 
and a proper interchanging of views between the officials in charge and 
the examiners and chemical experts in the laboratory. This fault is 
very liable to occur when the drug examiner is not an expert chemist. 

9. Have no means of knowing the action of the appraiser, except as 
to the class of merchandise which I examine, viz: Drugs, medicines, 
chemicals, dyes and dyestuffs, paints, oils, and such like preparations. 
I have always been cheerfully sustained by the appraisers at this port. 

10. There is some conflict of opinion as to including in the dutiable 
value of merchandise the cost of the “outer covering” in which the 
article is purchased, and also the cost of transportation from an interior 
town, where manufactured, to the port of shipment, where purchased. 

11. Have no facts by which I could give an answer to this question. 

12. The examiner, whose duty it is to personally examine the mer¬ 
chandise, of which he is supposed to be an expert , is solely responsible 
for any undervaluation or false return of the merchandise examined. 
The appraiser could not personally examine or be an expert in all mat¬ 
ters coming before him. The salaries of examiners vary. At this 
port one of the appraisers officially certifies to the correctness of the 
report made to the collector. 

13 and 14. Have no definite knowledge of matters covered by these 
questions. 

15. It is unfortunate, if true, of the venality of Government servants. 
I am of the opinion that if a servant of the Government was held strictly 
responsible for his work, and freed from the fear of favoritism, political 
or other interference, he would be much more likely to stand firmly to 
the principles of honesty and the honest enforcement of the laws. 
Bigid supervision by authorized Treasury agents is the only safeguard. 

16. There is no doubt in my mind but that a specific rate of duty, 
wherever practicable, would not only largely , but in fact wholly, prevent 
bribery. Wrong or fraudulent classification, as to hind or quality, could 
be prevented by requiring the preservation of the samples examined. 
This rule I have adopted at this port with good results. 

Specific rates, I think, could be applied to nearly, if not quite, all 
textile fabrics. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 501 


17. Have no knowledge of false reports by appraisers, and, therefore, 
cannot say as to the effect of the law. I think it a wise provision of 
law that gives to the Government the power to take books and papers 
in case of fraud or fraudulent intent on the part of importers. 

18. Yes. I deem it not only practicable, but of the greatest impor¬ 
tance, that the consular agents at all the chief markets of the world 
should be furnished with samples (where practicable) of all merchan¬ 
dise of which the invoice is presented to them for certification, and, 
after verifying the invoice price with the market price, forward the 
sample, with all information concerning it, to the appraiser of the port 
where it is intended to make entry. This is especially important in 
the case of coal-tar colors and chemical preparations. After a short 
time the knowledge and experience acquired by consular agents would 
prevent unnecessary delay, and therefore furnish no cause of complaint 
from foreign governments. Consular fees in London and England are 
from 10s. 6d. to 15s. 6d. 

19. I am of the opinion that the law as it now stands is sufficient, 
not only to protect the Government, but also the honest merchant, and 
should not be changed. Cannot see where an honest merchant could 
be benefited by a lengthy legal process which can be avoided, and all 
matters can now be settled by the Department under the present law, 
through a clear and honest statement of the facts in each case. 

20. 21, 22, 23, and 24. Upon the matters referred to in these ques¬ 
tions I have no definite information to communicate. 

Very respectfully, 

P. AMBROSE YOUNG, 

Special Examiner of Drugs , &c. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 54. 


JOHN W. NASON—Appointed Examiner January 19, 1872. 


Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 26, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to your circular of the 9th instant, addressed to me 
confidentially, I have the honor to make the following report, answer¬ 
ing the questions as propounded in their order. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN W. NASON, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


1. I have no evidence that the rates of duty prescribed by law and 
Department decisions have not been levied and collected. 

2. To my knowledge, there is no such evidence. 

3. Never having had any experience in the handling or examination 
of textile fabrics, I cannot say. 

4. I have no evidence on this point. 

5. The Department of weighing and measuring being entirely dis¬ 
tinct from my own, I have no means of knowing. 



502 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. 


6. Upon this subject I am not informed, the collector having all 
records of such suits. 

7. I have no evidence on this subject. 

8. I have no means of knowing. 

9. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that the appraiser has re¬ 
ported to the collector false dutiable values. 

10. To my knowledge, there has been no doubt or conflict of opinion 
in the appraiser’s department respecting the elements to be ascertained 
in order to fix and to declare dutiable value. The standard is already 
defined by the statutes to fix duty and values. 

11. I have no information of undervaluation. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible for a false 
return of value to the collector. The salaries of examiners at this port 
range from $1,200 to $2,000 per year. The appraiser at this port is 
always consulted when an addition to value or change of rate is made. 

13. There is no evidence to my knowledge. 

14. As far as my information extends, I do not know of any cases 
where the tariff law has not been faithfully executed and the full amount 
of duty collected according to law and Treasury Department decisions. 

15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, I have reason 
to believe that they will not be as successful in the future, as I now 
believe that an officer detected in receiving bribes will be punished 
according to the law. 

16. In my opinion, specific rates of duty would entirely remove all 
temptation to dishonesty on the part of exporters and importers, and 
greatly simplify the collection of the revenue. As to textile fabrics I 
cannot say. 

17. I have no information that false reports have been made by the 
appraisers. 

18. In my opinion, it would be practicable for the American consuls 
at all foreign ports to verify to the correctness of invoice values, as they 
do now in some consular districts in printed form—namely, London, 
Liverpool, Glasgow, and Sheffield—but there appears to be no uni¬ 
formity in the form of certificates. Some read thus: “I do further 
certify that I am satisfied that the person making the declaration hereto 
annexed is the person he represents himself to be, that he is a credible 
person, and that the statement made in said declaration is true. 7 7 Other 
certificates read : “That the actual market value or wholesale prices 
of the goods, wares, and merchandise described in said invoice in the 
principal markets of the country at the time of exportation are correct 
and true. 77 Other certificates are the same as the last-named, with this 
addition: “Excepting as changed by me, and as set forth in the column 
of consular corrections of estimates. 77 The consular fee in England 
is $2.50. 

19. I do not think that the executive or judicial powers should have 
greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable 
values. 

20. I would respectfully state that this can be better answered by the 
special examiner of wool. 

21. Of this I have no information, except from the common report 
that the practice prevails in New York. If such practice exists, I see 
no remedy, except the strict enforcement of the penalty at present pre¬ 
scribed. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 503 


22. In my opinion, the evidence does tend to show that the duty pre¬ 
scribed by law on many articles of merchandise has been carried by 
Congress beyond and above the line which the Government can surely 
protect. 

23. I have no evidence that the Treasury Department has failed to 
enforce the revenue law at the other large Atlantic ports. 

24. If false returns or reports to the collectors have been made, (of 
which I have no proof,) I am unable to state why the persons or officials 
concerned have not been indicted and punished. 


No. 55. 

EDWIN D. WHITE—Appointed Clerk, Boston, April 5, 1878; Examiner June 16,1882. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser’s Office, September 28, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department 
circular without date, marked “strictly confidential,” containing cer¬ 
tain inquiries in regard to customs matters, and to herewith submit the 
following replies thereto: 

Inquiry No. 1.—I am unaware of any cases where rates of duty have 
not been levied and collected as the law requires, except in cases which 
have been reported to the Department. 

Inquiry No. 2.—I have no knowledge of any evidence whatever that 
specific rates of duty have not been collected at this port. 

Inquiry No. 3.—This can be more satisfactorily answered by the ex¬ 
aminer of textile fabrics, which are measured. 

Inquiry No. 4.—I am not informed of any recent case of collusion be¬ 
tween persons making entry of goods and the customs officers desig¬ 
nating packages for examination. Some four years ago I was some¬ 
what informed as to a case of that character at this port, where one 
Herman Hirsh, of New York, and one Pollard, of the firm of Wood, 
Pollard & Co., of this city, were suspected of and finally indicted by the 
grand jury of this district for the fraudulent importation of silks and 
other expensive goods contained in the nine packages not examined, 
while the tenth package, designated at the inward foreign desk in the 
custom-house and examined by the appraisers, was found to contain 
free goods, or those paying a low rate of duty. The extent of the frauds 
was never fully known, but was large. The indictments are still in the 
hands of the United States attorney in this city, but have never been 
tried. 

Inquiry No. 5.—I am not informed upon this matter. 

Inquiry No. 6 . —Many of the suits since the passage of the tariff act 
of March 3, 1883, have grown out of the constructions given by the 
Department in regard to the inclusions in the dutiable value of mer¬ 
chandise of the cost of coverings of such merchandise. I am of opinion 
that the number of suits would have been very much smaller, indeed 
comparatively insignificant, had this portion of the tariff been declared 
to mean, as many of the most experienced and ablest officers in the 
customs service originally interpreted it, the exclusion from duty of all 
coverings and the imposition of duty upon the naked merchandise; 
and that this was the intent of Congress in the framing of that act, in- 



504 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


asmuch as one of its chief purposes was to reduce the amount of the 
revenue and to do away with the smaller vexations to which importers 
were subjected under the old law. Inasmuch as the highest law offi¬ 
cer of the Government has confirmed the Department in its original 
and later decisions, and one court at least has done the same, it would 
seem that the only remedy, if one is deemed desirable, is by further 
legislation. I am not informed as to the number of suits now pending 
in this district. 

The establishment of a board of arbitration, as suggested in the in¬ 
quiry, for the more speedy settlement of suits has been before the De¬ 
partment heretofore, and the opinions of the then leading customs 
officers of the country were submitted at the time. There seems little 
doubt that such a board of experienced and capable men would be very 
useful. 

Inquiry No. 7.—I am unable to answer. •* 

Inquiry No. 8.—I am unable to answer. 

Inquiry No. 9.—I have no reason to believe that the appraisers at this 
portrhave reported to the collector false dutiable values, which answers 
also sub-inquiries 2, 3, 4, and 5, except in the latter case. I would state 
that inasmuch as the appraiser’s return is presumed to be based upon his 
honest judgment, it would be very difficult, apparently, to successfully 
impute to him a dishonest intent, even if undervaluation .should be dis¬ 
covered. 

Inquiry No. 10.—Whatever confusion or doubt or conflict of opinion 
in this department respecting elements to be ascertained to fix dutiable 
value have arisen have been almost entirely in the matter of charges 
for coverings of merchandise. For instance, different importers of the 
same merchandise often claim that they purchase it in different condi¬ 
tions, some that the coverings are not a part of the market value of the 
goods when bought by them, and others exactly the opposite. This is 
particularly true of many small articles of earthenware and similar 
goods. 

Inquiry No. 11.—I am unable to state. 

Inquiry No. 12.—The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, 
in the usual course of business, for a false return of value to the collec¬ 
tors in this office, and undoubtedly at the larger ports. The signing by 
the chief appraiser of the reports of examiners is of a routine and per¬ 
functory character, and it would be simply impossible for him to per¬ 
sonally prove the correctness of such reports. 

Inquiry No. 13.—I could not state. 

Inquiry No. 14.—I am not informed upon this matter. 

Inquiry No. 15.—If bribery and venality have existed at this port in 
the past, taking into account the similarity of human nature at all times, 
it is fair to presume that it may still exist, but it certainly is well se¬ 
creted at this port. 

Inquiry No. 16.—A general change from ad valorem to specific rates 
of duty would be a benefit to the revenue, and would help to diminish a 
tendency to bribery, inasmuch as it would do away with the incentive 
to undervaluation. In the case of some textile fabrics, like silks, it 
might be well to add a slight ad valorem rate, in order to protect the 
American importer and consumer from frauds in the manufacture of 
such goods. 

Inquiry No. 17.-—It would seem to be almost self-evident that the re¬ 
peal of the moiety law removed a great and ever-present stimulus to 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 505 


customs officers, added to the requirements of their oath and their sense 
of official obligations to be not only true to their trusts, but to exercise 
extra vigilance. I do not believe that its repeal made any difference 
with an honest appraiser, like Mr. Rice, at t his port, but its general effect 
could be in but one direction, and that the wrong one. The fact that 
books and papers of importers suspected of fraud cannot be summarily 
seized, makes it almost impossible to ascertain whether they have act¬ 
ually purchased merchandise at the prices named on their invoices. 

Inquiry No. 18.—I am not aware how large a force is attached to the 
office of American consuls in London, Paris, Berlin, and similar large 
districts, so that I could not say whether it is practicable for them to 
personally examine articles to be shipped thence to American ports 
and to verify the correctness of invoice values; but if that is impossible, 
it would seem a matter of propriety, and in the interest of good morals, 
that their consciences should not be subjected to the strain that they 
must be when they attach their names to a certificate of which the fol¬ 
lowing is a copy, taken at random from a number of invoices: “I do 
further certify, * * * that the actual market values and wholesale 
price of the goods, wares, and merchandise described in said invoice, 
and in the principal markets of the country, and at the time of expor¬ 
tation, are correct and true as set forth in the column of consular cor¬ 
rections of estimates.” There are consular ports where the exports to 
this country are confined almost exclusively to a single article, and it 
would seem that there could be no excuse for the American consul there 
resident not giving such a certificate which would be final and satis¬ 
factory as to the market value of such merchandise at the time of 
exportation. 

Inquiry No.' 19.—It hardly seems possible that a more correct decision 
could be reached than is now obtained as to dutiable values by the 
action of the appraiser, and, if asked for, by the importer, by the gen¬ 
eral and merchant appraisers, and finally by the collector himself. 
The examiner making the original report and the appraiser approving 
it naturally obtain all the information possible to establish what was the 
true and actual market value and wholesale price of the merchandise 
in dispute in the principal markets of the country at the time of expor¬ 
tation to this country, and they would seem to be the best persons to 
obtain such information, as would also a merchant familiar with the 
merchandise, and the general appraiser, not only familiar with the 
merchandise, but with the customs laws and regulations affecting it, to 
be the best tribunal from which an equitable decision could be expected. 

Inquiry No. 20.—The wool examiner at this port, who has had a long 
experience with such merchandise, will undoubtedly fully answer this 
inquiry. From some familiarity with the merchandise and the prac¬ 
tice of importers, I have been led to the conclusion that there is some¬ 
thing wrong in the dividing line between third-class, or carpet-wool, 
and the higher goods. Improved machinery now enables manufacturers 
to comb wools which were formerly considered fit only for carpets, and 
there has been an apparent tendency of late to get into the country 
under the third-class rate invoices of wool a part of which, at least, can 
be combed, and it requires great watchfulness on the part of the exam¬ 
iner and appraiser to prevent such importations. The difference in 
duty is so large that the temptation to such a practice is very strong. 

Inquiry No. 21.—I do not believe that the practice generally prevails, 
or prevails at all as a practice, among customs officers at this port, of 


506 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


receiving money from arriving passengers, except for customs dues, 
either to prevent or facilitate or hasten the examination of luggage. I 
have never heard of such practice here, although it is not uncommon 
to hear of such practice in New York, and, indeed, passengers arriving 
at this port, annoyed at the thoroughness of the examination of their 
baggage, have stated that the next time they arrive from abroad they 
should land in New York. No accusation of such a practice has been 
made at this port, to my knowledge, against any officer performing such 
service. The remedy appears to be in the prompt punishment and 
disgrace of the offending officer. The great difficulty in reaching a 
conviction in such cases is that the giver and receiver of the bribe, the 
passenger and the officer, are alike guilty; and inasmuch as such trans¬ 
actions are not generally heralded by brass bands, the evidence neces¬ 
sary for conviction is generally confined to the offending parties, who 
are equally liable to the penalties of the law. 

Inquiry No. 22.—In some cases, probably, the rate of duty is too high 
as far as the necessities or objects of the tariff are concerned, but the 
instances are very few where the rates are too high for the Government 
to protect or collect. The higher the rate the greater the incentive to 
undervaluation and smuggling; as, for instance, in the latter case, the 
article of bay oil, of which so little pays duty, wffiile so much reaches 
this country. In smuggling, it would not seem that high rates of duty 
govern, any more than the convenient condition of the article, like dia¬ 
monds, for instance, although subject to low duty. 

Inquiry No. 23.—New York is a very large city, and the history of 
all great aggregations of people is that the larger they are the greater 
the number of rascals, and in an increased ratio with such,population, 
and as one successful crime tempts the vicious to emulate it, so the 
greater the city the greater must be expected the violation of revenue 
laws. For that reason, if no other, the failure of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment to enforce the revenue law in New York has not been true to an ex¬ 
tent proportionate with population at the other large Atlantic ports. 

Inquiry No. 24.—I am not aware of any instance in which false returns 
or reports to the collector of dutiable values have been made at this 
port. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

EDWIN D. WHITE, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 56. 

GEORGE KEYES—Appointed Inspector, Boston, July 31, 1877; Examiner, May 19, 

1879. 


Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Officer , September 28, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your circular letter requesting answers to 
various questions in regard to the collection of duties, and the manner 
in which business is conducted by customs officials, and, in reply, have 
the honor to state that for several years my duties have been confined 
to the examination and appraisement of one article of import, and the 



REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 507 


various questions connected with that article arising from time to time 
at this and other ports. As this article (sugar) pays more than one- 
third of the whole amount of duties collected at this port, and a large 
proportion of the revenue derived from customs at all the ports, and 
as the various matters connected with the examination and appraise¬ 
ment of this article require constant watchfulness in order to obtain 
correct samples and accurate tests upon which to base the rates of 
duty, I have had but little if any opportunity to obtain the knowledge 
of other kinds of imported goods or of the duties performed by other 
officials which would be necessary to enable me to answer intelligently 
many of the questions in your circular. I shall, therefore, only reply 
to those questions which i have reason to suppose my knowledge will 
enable me to answer in such a manner as to be of some value. 

Answer to Question No. 2. —The article of sugar pays a purely specific 
rate, without reference to value, but it is very doubtful if the whole 
amount of duty as prescribed by Congress is collected upon it at all 
the ports of entry. This is owing, in my judgment, to the method of 
ascertaining the rate of duty by polariscopic tests. The polariscope is 
an instrument which is very delicate, and requires the most careful 
manipulation, and the least carelessness on the part of the person using 
it affects the results obtained. The article to be tested is itself affected 
by different states of the atmosphere and different methods of sampling. 
Samples drawn and tested in damp weather absorb moisture, and the 
test will be lower than in clear, dry weather. The mere action of a 
sampler in wetting his trier will affect the sample to be tested, and the 
Government may be the loser to a large amount in duties by such slight 
matters as these. In my opinion, the whole method of collection should 
be changed and a specific duty of one rate should be established upon 
all sugars not refined. 

Answer to Question No. 5.—There is no evidence of false or incompe¬ 
tent weighing of sugar at this port. I have had occasion to know 
something of the methods of business pursued by the weighers of this 
article, and I am certain that, so far as my knowledge extends, the 
weighing has been accurately and carefully done. I have known of 
many cargoes of sugar which have been reweighed after the Govern¬ 
ment weigher, and I have never known an instance in which the Gov¬ 
ernment weight was not fully up to the reweight, while I have known 
many instances where it was impossible for the merchant weigher upon 
re weight to obtain as high weights as those of the Government upon 
which the duties had been levied. 

Answer to Question No. 6 .— In 1881 the Secretary of the Treasury 
issued a circular asking for information of a similar character to that 
contained in this question, and I had the honor of receiving a copy and 
sending an answer to the same. I have never seen any reason to change 
the views expressed in that answer, which were in favor of the estab¬ 
lishment of a board of arbitration for the settlement of customs cases, 
similar to the board of arbitration which are established by all boards 
of trade in the larger cities of the United States. Such a board would 
dispose of all cases much more promptly and satisfactorily than they 
could be settled in the courts of law. 

Answer to Question No. 7.—There has been for several years an almost 
constant complaint among the importers at this port in regard to the 
lower rates of duty upon sugar at the port of New York. From cases 
which have come to my knowledge, in which a comparison could be 


508 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


made, I have been satisfied that there was some foundation for these 
complai .its. Statements in regard to different cases have been presented 
to the special agents of the Department at different times, and changes 
have resulted from investigations pursued by them in New York. The 
present regulation requiring the exchange of daily statements of the 
classification of sugars between the ports New York, Philadelphia, and 
Boston has in a great measure prevented the cause of complaint. 

Answer to Question No. 8.—The failure to collect the full amount of 
duty upon sugar at the port of New York has, in my opinion, been 
attributable to carelessness in sampling of the article more than to any 
other cause. There is no evidence of any guilty knowledge among the 
higher class of officials in regard to it. 

Ansicer to Question No. 12.—The examiners at this port are primarily 
and chiefly responsible in the usual course of business for any false 
returns to the collector. The salaries of examiners at this port range 
from $1,200 to $1,800 per annum. The appraiser’s department at this 
port is established with two appraisers and two assistant appraisers. 
The business of the department is divided, one appraiser being at the 
head of those having the examination of dry-goods or textile fabrics, 
while the other is at the head of all officers having the examination of 
other kinds of merchandise. The appraiser under whose direction my 
duties are performed (Mr. T. G. Rice) has always been much more 
than one who officially certifies to reports. He has always given con¬ 
stant attention to the duties of his office and the various questions 
arising in regard to imported merchandise, and never, to my knowl¬ 
edge, signs a report about which there could be a question without 
carefully examining into the merits of the case. The assistant appraiser 
under Mr. Rice (Mr. J. E. Jones) has never taken any responsibility, 
and is an officer who is considered by his subordinates inefficient and 
ignorant of the duties of his position. 

Answer to Question No. 16.—I have no doubt that a change from ad 
valorem to specific rates would be a benefit to the revenue and help to 
diminish a tendency to all difficulties between importers and the Gov¬ 
ernment. 

Answer to Question No. 21.—Several years ago I was familiar with 
the examination of baggage at this port, and 1 am certain that during 
the period of my acquaintance with the matter there was never a pay¬ 
ment of money to any officer connected with such examination. If 
such practices prevail at other ports, the remedy is to have carefully- 
selected men for the service, who would have, more respect for their 
office than to lower themselves to the level of hotel waiters and porters. 
They should be held strictly responsible, and at the same time be sup¬ 
ported by their superior officer in the performance of their duties. 

Answer to Question No. 22.—I think the evidence tends to show that 
the rate of duty upon sugar has been carried by Congress above the 
line where the Government can surely protect itself. During the past 
year the duty upon sugar has been nearly 100 per cent, ad valorem. 
Such a rate invariably leads to corruption, and will always render dis¬ 
honest importers powerful in evading the law. 

I am, very respectfully, 

GEORGE KEYES, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TRExYSURY. 509 


No. 57. 


C. H. PINKHAM—Appointed Assistant Weigher November 11, 1869; Inspector 
November 24, 1869 ; Examiner October 14, 1875. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser'’ s Office, September 30, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to your circular of the 9th instant, addressed to me 
as strictly confidential, and desiring careful and official replies to cer¬ 
tain questions therein propounded, I have the honor to report that, 
after a careful examination of the different questions to which you call 
my attention, I find that I shall be unable to intelligently answer many 
of them, from the fact that my official connection with the customs ser¬ 
vice has been such that I have had no opportunity to become familiar 
with many of the subjects under consideration. 

As some of these questions refer to the action of officials at the port 
of New York, and others refer to questions which can only properly be 
answered by the collectors or principal appraisers at the different ports 
of the United States, I shall therefore confine myself to answering and 
giving opinions on those with which I may be familiar, and in doing so 
will take them in their order as presented by you. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. H. PINKHAM, 

j Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

1. I have no knowledge that rates of duty have not been levied and 
collected as the law and Department decisions prescribe. 

2. I have no knowledge or evidence that on articles paying purely 
specific rates the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not 
been collected. 

3. In my opinion, by actual weighing, measuring, or count, as the 
case may be. 

I. I have no evidence, but, in my opinion, such collusion is possible. 

5. I have no evidence. 

6. I am not in a position to answer, but, in my opinion, the collectors 
of the various ports can furnish the information required. 

7. I am unable to answer. 

8. I am unable to answer. 

9. I have no evidence that the “principal appraiser” at this port has 
ever reported to the collector any false dutiable values. 

IQ. In my opinion, there has been recently confusion and doubt as to 
the elements which form the dutiable value of merchandise. This is 
due, in part, to the very many interpretations of the law of March 3, 
1883, in reference to outside and inside coverings of merchandise, the 
question being whether cartons and other inside and outside coverings 
should be included in the dutiable value of the merchandise. 

In the examination of merchandise which comes under my supervis¬ 
ion, viz., a majority of the articles coming under the provisions of 
Schedule B of T. I., new, pars. 127, 143, there are many cases where 
there is great doubt whether cartons and other packing charges are 
an element of the dutiable value of merchandise contained tnerein. 
This applies more especially to decorated china and glass ware, &c., from 
the potteries and factories of Germany and Austria, and also to many 


510 RERORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


classes of merchandise which are packed in cartons and other packing. It 
is often difficult to determine whether or not such merchandise is offered 
for sale in the foreign markets in the condition in which exported, and 
the best expert testimony will oftentimes be conflicting. This question 
has led dishonest merchants and manufacturers to attempt to reduce the 
dutiable value of merchandise by making an exorbitant charge for car¬ 
tons and packing, in some instances the charge being 20 to 30 per cent, 
of the whole value of an invoice; and if such charges were allowed and 
deducted, the Government would be defrauded in large amounts. It 
therefore becomes necessary for the appraising officer to scrutinize these 
invoices with more than ordinary care, that the Government shall not 
be defrauded and shall receive its just dues. 

In my opinion, it was the intention of the law-makers of the act of 
1883 that only the naked goods should be dutiable but as the instruc¬ 
tions of the Department are such that the condition in which merchan¬ 
dise is offered for sale in the foreign markets is the condition in which 
it shall pay duty, it is often a vexed question to the appraising officer 
to decide what the condition is in which many classes of merchandise 
are offered for sale in the foreign markets. 

In my opinion, some action should be taken by the incoming Congress 
explanatory of the act of March 3, 1883, and to so simplify and interpret 
the law that any intelligent merchant or customs officer can act under - 
standingly as to what constitutes the dutiable value of merchandise. 

In my opinion, the place and time and the standard to be applied, 
other than as before stated, are clearly defined in the statutes for pur¬ 
poses of determining market values. 

11. I am unable to answer, but in my opinion they cannot. 

12. In my opinion, the examiner or the assistant appraiser is prima¬ 
rily responsible for a false return of value to the collector. The salaries 
of examiners vary at this port from $1,200 to $2,000 per year. 

The appraiser ordinarily and in fact is the one who certifies to the 
collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiners. At 
this port it is customary for the examiners to consult with the appraiser 
in regard to advances in market values. 

13. I am unable to say. 

14. If false values have been returned to the collector, and the tariff 
law has not been faithfully executed, and the full amount of duty has 
not been collected, the fault has certainly come of dishonesty, or possi¬ 
bly by an error of judgment on the part of the appraising officers; and 
in my opinion, the examiner or assistant appraiser would be primarily 
responsible for such returns; and if money is paid to officials to get 
false returns of dutiable values, it is more than likely paid by the im¬ 
porter or his agent. 

15. If false returns have come of bribery, I know of no reason why 
similar influences will not be exerted in the future as in the past, and 
that the same influences would be as liable to be successful in the future 
as in the past. Personally, I have no knowledge of any such dishonest 
practices. 

16. In my opinion, a change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
be a benefit to the revenue, and should be applied where practicable. 
This would tend to diminish the liability to false invoices and under¬ 
valuations, and, while the Government would be better protected, spe¬ 
cific rates would, in my opinion, be much more satisfactory to all honest 
importers. 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 511 


17. I have no evidence or proof that there have been false reports by 
the appraisers, before or since the repeal of the moiety law in 1874. 

18. In large American consular districts, such as London, Paris, Ber¬ 
lin, &c., in my opinion, it would not be practical to personally exam¬ 
ine articles to be shipped to American ports, but at smaller ports, I am 
of the opinion, it would be practical, as the varieties of goods from 
smaller ports are usually lew in number. 

In the district of Tunsfcall, in Staffordshire, England, in my opinion, 
the consul would be able to ascertain the dutiable value of merchandise, 
especially of staple goods. In this district almost all of the potteries 
for the manufacture of Euglish china, and earthen ware are located, 
large quantities of the product of which are exported to the United 
States. The usual consular fees in England are 10-9. (xZ., or $2.50. 

19. I do not think that the executive or judicial power should have 
greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable values, 
which is the basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates. 

20. As regards the duty on wool, I have no knowledge, and no means 
at my command for ascertaining the history of the several rates of duty 
since 1800, or the working of the same. 

21. It is common report that the practice does prevail of the payment 
of money by arriving passengers at the port of New York for the pur¬ 
pose of hastening the examination of baggage^or, perhaps, for other 
reasons. It must certainly be for some service rendered by the in¬ 
spector if such moneys are paid, and, in my opinion, this cannot be 
prevented by any enactment of law, but by the employment of officers 
to perform that duty who are intelligent, of high moral character, and 
who are above being parties to a practice which the law condemns and 
forbids. 

22. In the absence of any evidence, I am unable to answer, but, in 
my opinion, the rate of duty on many articles is above a line which the 
Government can surely protect; and, in my opinion, the rate of duty 
on many articles should be reduced to a point that will protect the 
varied industries of this country, but should not, at the same time, 
make the importation of many kinds of merchandise nearly prohibitory 
on account of the high rates of duty. It then becomes an incentive for 
dishonest shippers and merchants to make undervaluations of merchan¬ 
dise, thereby defrauding the Government out of its just dues. 

23. I think not, although it is possible that such may be the case at 
ports other than New York, but of course in a much less degree. 

24. I know of no cases where correct returns have not been made of 
dutiable values to the collector. If there have been such cases, I am 
uhable to say why such persons have not been arrested, indicted, and 
punished. 


No. 58. 

WM. II. DIMOND—Appointed Examiner October 22, 1883, and April 22, 1884. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Office , September 30, 18S5. 

Dear Sir : In answer to your circular of September 9, 1885, I have 
the pleasure and honor to reply : 

1. As far as I have observed, there is no evidence that the rates of 
duty have not been levied and collected as prescribed, and, I believe, 
with great care. 



512 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


2. Do not know of any. 

3. Am not familiar with the system of the dry-goods department at 
the appraiser’s, but would suppose the examiner would carefully exam¬ 
ine textile fabrics according to manner prescribed by Treasury Regula¬ 
tions. 

4. Know of none. In my department (wool) think it impossible for 
any collusion between the entry clerk, deputy collector, and importer, 
in cases of invoices of, say, English combing-fleeces, or Scotch carpet- 
fleeces, sold in bulk, and packed in bags or sheets in England or 
Scotland, say 5,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds, or more, they would 
be in many packages, usually numbered from No. 1 up. Sometimes 
one range of numbers would be ordered up for examination, such as 
Nos. 1, 11, 21, 31, &c., or Nos. 5, 15, 25, 35, &c., or Nos. 10, 20, 30, 40, 
&c., or odd numbers in ranges, always one in ten of each range and 
marks. It would be difficult to arrange them in England so that a low 
quality of wool could be picked out of the whole lot to be sent for ex¬ 
amination. It has been the custom at this port to examine merchan¬ 
dise in bonded warehouse, and in cases of large lots, say, 100 to 300 
bales. I will go to bonded store, after the various marks are arranged 
and piled by themselves, to make the examination. I can then see more 
bales than one in ten, and draw my sample from a much larger num¬ 
ber. In examining such lots of English and Scotch, it has been my 
custom to take out whole fleeces, examine by opening the fleeces, take 
off enough from each for my sample, return balance to bale. By so 
doing I can better determine the classification and value of wools that 
come near the line between second class, or combing-wool, such as Scotch 
cheviot, and third class, or carpet (Scotch) wool, as Blackface High¬ 
land fleeces. Merino wools from Australia, Monte Video, &c., are as¬ 
sorted and packed in the country of production according to fineness 
of fibre, and sometimes bales will run lighter and brighter than others 
of same clip and mark, and all grown on same ranch from same sheep. 
The same system in ordering examination bales of Australian, Monte 
Video, East Indian, or carpet wools from Turkey, &c., in original pack¬ 
ages exists, and I have sometimes found better wool among the exam¬ 
ination bales than the general run of the whole lot. 

5. I know of none. In an experience of some fifteen years as clerk of 
an importing house, have come in contact with many of the weighers 
on the wharves. Have never noticed any false weighing, or had occa¬ 
sion to question the weights as returned by Government weighers, 
though our books always showed that merino wool will invariably over¬ 
run the invoice weights, and a collection for excess of weight vas 
always paid. On the contrary, all cross-bred wools from Australia and 
New Zealand, and combing wools (2d class) from England, will always 
fall short. Importers, in estimating costs of such, usually allow from 
1 to 3 per cent, for loss in weight. Buyers of merino (1st class) are not 
willing to take Government weights, well knowing that after a few days 
from landing the wool will not hold out in weight, and on arrival at 
mill claims would be made on importer. 

6. Am not familiar with the collectors’ suits, &c. The Tariff Com¬ 
mission, in their report of December, 1882, vol. 1, page 42, recommended 
a “customs court” for such cases, and it appears to me to be a good 
thing. The tesbimony of Mr. Tiios. G. Rice, appraiser in Boston, vol. 
1, page 724, is confirmatory of same. There have been wool cases in 
question between the Government and importers, in which the im- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 513: 


porters have been sustained, where the loss, by delay and detention, of 
changes in the market, expenses, damage by moths, was very large; 
in one case of Cordoba wool, nearly $50,033, upon which there was no 
redress. 

7. Do not know. 

8. Do not know. 

9. There certainly has been none in the wool department here’ since 
I have been an examiner. Am always pleased to receive ideas and re¬ 
ports of values, &c., of wool from special agents or consuls, in order 
to compare their reports with my judgment of the value and the classi¬ 
fication. 

10. I know of none, unless it be a doubt as to the market value of 
wool at the time and place of shipment. If we could have regular 
prices-current of wool in London and Li verpool, from regular and re¬ 
sponsible brokers, and catalogues of the East India carpet-wool sales 
in Liverpool, it would be of great assistance. I do now have catalogues. 
of the Australian London wool sales, sent by consul at London; also 
a report from Consul Grinnell, at Bradford, England; a price-current 
from Wedkind & Wilson, London, and one from H. Caune, Marseilles, 
probably sent by consul there. Several brokers in London and Liver¬ 
pool, as Messrs. J. L. Bowes & Bro., Windeler & Co., Ronald, Son 
Co., &c., publish prices-current, &c., and I would like to have them. 
Their reports were formerly sent here, but the practice has been dis¬ 
continued. The place and time and the standard to be applied are well 
known, and it remains for the examiner to keep posted op on the market 
values at ports of shipment. 

11. Think not. Samples of wool importations are kept into the 
second year after drawn—that is, the samples for 1883 were delivered 
to such importers as cared to call for them at the end of the year 1884, 
and the samples for 1884 will be so disposed of at end of 1885. Those 
not called for are turned over to collector, to be sold at auction as un¬ 
claimed merchandise. The invoices can be found any time, but beyond^ 
that time the samples could not be got. 

12. Should think the examiner would be chiefly responsible in the. 
appraiser’s department of such magnitude as Boston, New York, Phil¬ 
adelphia, &c., where it would be next to impossible for the appraiser 
to view every invoice and examination package. The salaries are not 
evenly distributed among the examiners; they vary considerably. In 
my experience Mr. Rice, the appraiser at this port, has always given 
his personal attention to all cases where a question has arisen, and I 
make it a rule to always call his attention to any case that varies from : 
the regular routine, even if there is no change to note. 

13. I do not know. I believe none in regard to wool invoices, since? 
my connection with the department. 

14. It is stated in Ex. Doc. 101 that there were large inportations, 
of Scotch carpet wools which were said to be undervalued. A lengthy- 
report was made by special agents and consuls, all of which appears ia 
evidence. I learn that a lot of Cordoba South American (3d class) 
carpet-wool to Boston, on which was a question of undervaluation, was 
decided in favor of importer; but it has been a mystery how cerkiin 
Scotch wools could be imported under the low duty to Philadelphia. 

15. Would suppose the publicity given to importations, to Philadel¬ 
phia spoken of in Ex. Doc. 101 would i^revent any repetition of the 
operation. 

33 A 


514 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


16. Specific duties cau be more surely collected when the nature of 
the article is such as to make it practicable to impose such. 

17. I do not believe so. 

18. Think it would bo difficult. Think it would be better for con¬ 
suls to certify to invoices of merchandise sold in their own consular 
districts. For instance, there have been invoices of wool, bought and 
packed in Scotland and shipped from Glasgow to Boston, which were 
made and certified to at Bradford, England, the home of the branch 
house of the Boston firm of importers. Fees on several invoices of 
wool now before me, as follows: Marseilles, $2.50; Liverpool, $2.50 ; 
Bradford, $2.50; London, $2.50; Valparaiso, Ohili, $3.50. No men¬ 
tion of fee on invoices from Buenos Ayres or Smyrna. 

19. In my judgment, it would be not judicious to make any change, 
as, if the appraisers or examiners were capable men and well posted in 
their respective departments, it would only tend to delay and compli¬ 
cate matters. 

20. The tariff law in force in 1860 provided for a duty on “ wool, un¬ 
manufactured, and all hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals,’ 7 
costing under 18 cents per pound, 5 per cent, ad valorem; over 18 cents 
per pound and not over 24 cents per pound, 3 cents per pound ; exceed¬ 
ing 24 cents per pound, 9 cents per pound. Under this law, the im¬ 
portations of wool were principally confined to carpet-wools from South 
America, Russia, Turkey, &c., which are always of a low value and 
came in under the 5 per cent, ad valorem rate of duty, and fine wools 
of a low cost from the Cape of Good Hope and Montevideo, and paid 
3 cents and 9 cents per pound. This law was in force till the act of 
March 2, 1867, in which the’ classification by race or blood was made 
and the compound of specific 10 cents and 12 cents per pound and ad 
valorem 10 per cent, and 11 per cent, duty on first and second classes 
and a specific duty of 3 cents and 6 cents per pound on third-class wool 
was made. The importations of carpet-wools have not decreased, but 
largely increased with the increase of carpet-machinery. The impor¬ 
tations of better wools from Australia and New Zealand have enor¬ 
mously increased, while Cape wools have fallen off. The importations, 
also, of combing English fleeces for worsted spinning have very largely 
increased. 

The new classification of merino (class 1) and English combing fleeces, 
(class 2,) which was the result of an agreement between the wool-growers 
and worsted combing manufacturers, by which (class 1) merino clothing- 
wool must be imported unwashed to enable it to be brought in at 10 
cents per pound, when combing (class 2) and carpet (class 3) could be 
brought in washed at the low rate of duty, makes it imperative for the 
buyer in London or Melbourne to be very careful about selection of 
the choicest and lightest unwashed wool, in order to come under the 
10-cent or 12-cent clause, they having no chance to buy good washed 
colonial wools, on account of double duty. 

A large amount of money has been made by importers under the 
tariff, but manufacturers cannot compete with the European manu¬ 
facturers, who can have the choice of light, washed, first-class wool, 
which is practically prohibited here. 

There has been no change in tariff legislation since then, except the 
repeal of the discriminating duty of 10 per cent, additional on wools 
grown east of the Cape of Good Hope, until the act of March 3, 1883, 
when the ad valorem duty was stricken out on first and second class 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 515 


wools, and a reduction of one-half cent and one cent per pound on third- 
class wool was made. The dividing line between the value of first and 
second class, paying 10 cents per pound and 12 cents per pound, was 
reduced to 30 cents from 32 cents per pound, cost. 

There is but little first-class washed wool imported during the year 
1884, but 3 T oVo per cent, of the whole importations of class 1 wool was 
washed, while all the second-class wool was washed. 

I have made a table of the importations of wool for 1884, which is 
annexed. I forwarded to Mr. Tingle, special agent, with several re¬ 
ports, speeches and data furnished by Mr. Rowland Hazard, Provi¬ 
dence, R. I., and prices-current, annual reports, &c., by Mr. George 
William Bond, of this city, which will be very valuable to him. 

Recapitulation of Importations of Wool for 1884. 


Classification. 

Bales. 

Pounds, 

(unwashed.) 

Value. 

Class 1—Merino wool. 

30,078 

11,431,151 

$2,729,461 

Of which were washed. 

85 

35,525 

14,934 

Class 2, (washed).. 

5,555 

3,078,442 

721,282 

Class 3. 

33,379 

12,558 

15,944,287 
4,275,736 

1,785,301 

608,587 

Of which were washed. 

Miscellaneous, camel’s hair, raw, noils and tops, waste, and 




cattle-hair... 

5,308 

74,320 

2,325,853 

32,779,733 

593,155 

5,829,199 

Total importations. 



21. It would seem possible to prevent such by having as inspectors 
of baggage, &c., only such men as are reliable, honest, and above sus¬ 
picion, and to enforce a penalty against the passenger giving and the 
officer accepting a bribe. 

22. Do not think so. 

23. Think not, in Boston, for, as stated in answer to Ho. 1, think 
great care has been exercised at this port. 

24. Should judge, if so, the importer would not make complaint, but 
if men of strict integrity and ability were in official positions and only 
did their whole duty, there would be but little to complain of. 

My replies to your several questions have of necessity been more 
closely confined to my single department, and for the time I have 
been examiner, namely, two years next month. In conclusion, I will 
say that I think the business in Boston has been honestly done. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

WM. H. DIMOHD, 

Examiner of Wool . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

















516 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 54. 

J. T. LEARY—Appointed Clerk and Sampler October 15, 1879; Examiner May 7 r 

1880. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Office , September 30, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully acknowledging the receipt of your circular, marked 
strictly confidential, containing certain queries to which full and com¬ 
plete replies are requested, I have the honor to state that as I have 
charge of the sugar laboratory, and as my time is fully occupied with 
the duty of testing sugars by the polariscope, I have had no oppor¬ 
tunity of acquiring such a knowledge of the subjects covered by your 
inquiries as would enable me to make a satisfactory reply. I will en¬ 
deavor to reply as far as my limited knowledge will permit. 

Question 1.—I have no evidence that the rates of duty prescribed by 
law have not been levied and collected. 

Question 2.—I know of no articles paying purely specific rates of duty 
upon which the full amount of duty has not been collected. 

Question 3.—Textile fabrics are either weighed or measured, as the 
case may be. 

Question 4.—I personally know of none, nor have I ever heard rumors 
of such during the period of my employment. 

Question 5.—I have only heard of one instance of incorrect weighing 
on the wharves, and the weigher was dismissed in consequence. 

Question 6. —In regard to differences between importers and col¬ 
lectors out of which have grown suits I have not sufficient knowledge 
to venture an opinion as to whether the law needs amendment or not. 
I cannot tell how many such suits are pending in either of the ports 
named; I cannot tell as to the duration of these suits. A proposition 
was made some two years ago to establish a separate tribunal, to have 
jurisdiction in customs cases only, which would thus relieve the docket 
of the circuit court, and hasten the settlement of cases arising from dif¬ 
ferences between importers and collectors. 

Question 7.—I cannot specify the class of articles upon which the full 
amount of duty was not collected in New York. 

Question 8.—I do not know. 

Question 9.—I do not think the appraisers at this port have reported 
false values to the collector. I am not aware that the appraisers’ re¬ 
turns of dutiable values have ever been questioned, or reported against, 
by the special agents of the Treasury. 

Question 10.—I am not aware that there is, or has been, any conflict 
of opinion in this office between the appraisers and their subordinates 
as to the elements to be ascertained in order to determine the dutiable 
value. The opinion has been held that the intent of Congress in the 
tariff of 1883 was to make the dutiable value of imported merchandise 
the value of such merchandise exclusive of all charges for packing, 
packages, cartons, sacks, or coverings of any description whatever. 

Question 11.—No. 

Question 12.—The examiner is primarily responsible for a false return 
of value. His salary is from $1,200 to $1,800 per annum at this port. 
In most cases the appraiser can have but little knowledge, but at this 
port he is frequently consulted, and the reports of examiners are care¬ 
fully scrutinized by him before receiving his indorsement. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 517 


Question 13.— I do not know that any Government officials have as¬ 
sisted in the presentation to the appraisers of false evidence of foreign 
values. 

Question 14.—I cannot answer. 

Question 15.—It is presumable that they would. 

Question 16.—The substitution of purely specific for ad valorem 
rates of duty would, in my opinion, be a benefit, and secure to the 
honest importer protection, and to the Government a more exact col¬ 
lection of the revenue. With such rates of duty, the ’honest importer 
would be enabled to know exactly the amount of duty to be paid, and 
could dispose of his merchandise without the vexatious delay which 
the settlement of the dutiable value now entails, while the dishonest 
vrould no longer have the opportunity to defraud the Government out 
of its just dues by the presentation of false invoices and undervalua¬ 
tions. 

Question 17.—As the “moiety law” was repealed before my entrance 
into the service, I have no means of comparison. 

Question 18.—I think it would be next to impossible for consuls to 
make such examinations as referred to, though I think it might be done 
in some instances. I do not know in which of the consular districts this 
is possible, but believe there are many districts in which the numbei* 
of articles of export are few in number, and in such cases it would be 
possible to determine positively the correctness of invoice values. The 
fees for certifying to invoices are in London $2.50 for each invoice. 

Question 19.—In my opinion, it would not be desirable to change. 

Question 20.—I have no means at my command of preparing such a 
report on the wool question as you request. 

Question 21. —In regard to the practice referred to by passengers ar¬ 
riving from abroad, I have no personal knowledge, as I have never had 
any experience on the wharf, but I presume it does occur. 

Question 22.—The only article of imported merchandise with which I 
have to do is sugar, which yields a large portion of the revenue. Be¬ 
ing an article which is highly taxed, the temptation to evade the law 
and secure lower rates of duty is very great. The act of March 3,1883, 
fixes the method by which the rates of duty shall be determined, and if 
the sugar is honestly sampled and tested there can be no opportunity 
for successful attempts at fraud. If the officers of the Government are 
honest and do their duty fairly, the Government must, and in my opin¬ 
ion does, receive the full amount of duty to which the merchandise is 
liable. 

Question 23.—I am unable to answer this question. 

Question 24.—As stated, I am not aware that false returns have been 
made to the collector, the appraiser at this port being an able and 
conscientious officer, who is thoroughly informed as to values, with long 
experience and good judgment to aid him. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. T. LEABY, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


518 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 60. 

C. G. FITCH—Appointed Clerk June 3, 1872 ; Examiner March 19, 1880. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 1, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your circular letter propounding twenty-four ques¬ 
tions, I respectfully beg leave to reply to them in their respective order, 
as follows: 

1. I know of no evidence to the contrary. 

2. There is no satisfactory evidence. 

3. In the examination of the merchandise which comes within my 
province, viz., machinery, fruits, and liquors, I am not brought in con¬ 
tact with the examiners of textile fabrics, and am unable to state what 
tests are applied by them to verify the measurements. 

4. There is no evidence at this port of any such collusion, but it could 
be easily accomplished if the customs officials and the importers were so 
disposed. 

5. Know of no evidence or case in proof. 

6. Have no knowledge, as the several inquiries come more especially 
within the jurisdiction of the collector of the port than of the appraiser’s 
department. 

7. Know of none within my personal knowledge. 

8. Know of none within my personal knowledge. 

9. Know of none within my personal knowledge. 

10. Doubt has sometimes existed as to the proper interpretation of the 
Treasury decisions, especially in regard to the coverings of merchan¬ 
dise. Second. It is. 

11. I know of no cases of undervaluation by the appraisers. 

12. The examiner. Second. Yes. His detailed supervision is con 
stant, and cases referred for his decision daily, and might say hourly. 

13. None that I know of. 

14. I know of no such false returns nor guilty connivance with 
Treasury or customs officials at this port. 

15. No attempt to bribe or induce with consent to false returns or 
undervaluations is within my knowledge. 

16. In my opinion, it would, as a whole, prove an equal benefit to 
the Government and the importer. It would effect an easier collection 
of revenue, and largely reduce the number of cases now referred to the 
Treasury Department and Federal courts for decision. 

17. Know of no false reports at this port. 

18. In the large European ports, where there is such an endless vari 
ety of merchandise shipped from thence to this country, it would be 
almost impossible for the consuls to personally examine the articles 
shipped and verify the invoice values; but in the smaller ports, where 
the value of the articles exported is comparatively few, they could easily 
find the true market value, and so make the consular certificate of some 
value and assistance to the customs officials, which is not now the case 
Fees, 10s. 6d, or $2.50. 

19. With honest officials and the existing law fully complied with 
I think the interests both of the Government and the importers are fully 
protected. 

20. I can give no answer that would be of value to you. 


report or Tin: secretary of the treasury. 519 


21 and 22. The examination of baggage and the knowledge of duties 
collected does not fall within my official duty or observation, and only 
know from rumor that such practice largely exists at the port of New 
York. As both parties, the briber and bribed, are amenable to the 
law, it behooves each to shield the other. As a preventative, officers 
should be appointed who are above corruption, and who would report 
to the proper authorities any person offering a bribe, upon whose head 
punishment should follow swift and sure. A few examples would soon 
break up this demoralizing practice. 

23. I know' of no failure to enforce, the revenue law at this port. 
Have no personal knowledge of wdiat has occurred at other ports. 

24. I know of no false returns of dutiable values made to the col¬ 
lector of this port. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CHAKLES G. FITCH, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 61. 


C. W. C. RHODES—Appointed Inspector July 11, 1867; Storekeeper January 6, 1869; 
Examiner June 24, 1880. 


Port of Boston, Mass., 

Appraiser’s Office, October 2, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your circular of the 9th ultimo, desiring replies to 
certain inquiries therein, I have the honor to state that after careful 
examination of the different questions propounded, I find I shall be un¬ 
able to answer many of the questions satisfactorily, from the fact that 
my official position in the customs service has not brought me in con¬ 
tact with the subject-matter contained therein. I therefore beg leave 
to confine myself to such questions as I may be familiar with, and in so 
doing will take them in their order as presented in the circular. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. W. C. EHOADES, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


1. So far as my knowledge extends, I believe the rates of duty have 
been levied and collected as prescribed by law and Department de¬ 
cisions. 

2. I have no iinformation which would lead me to suppose that on 
articles paying purely specific rates the full amount of duty prescribed 
by Congress has not been collected. 

3. By measurement, weighing, or count, as the rate of duty may 
require. 

4. I have no such evidence; and while admitting such collusion might 
be possible, in my opinion there is no such practice at this port. 

5. I have no such evidence. 

9. I know of no evidence that the principal appraiser at this port 
has ever reported to the collector any false dutiable values. 



&20 REPORT of the secretary of the treasury. 


10. There has been conflict of opinion in appraiser’s department 
which, I think, arises principally from the ambiguity of the tariff law. 

12. In my opinion, the examiner or principal appraiser is primarily 
responsible for a false return of value to the collector. The salaries of 
examiners at this port range from $1,200 to $2,000 per annum. At this 
port the appraiser certifies to the collector the values fixed and reported 
to him by the examiners. It is also the practice for the examiners to 
consult with the appraiser in regard to advances in market value. 

13. I have no such information. 

14. If false values have been returned to the collectors, and the tariff 
law has not been faithfully executed, and the full amount of duty col¬ 
lected, it might come of dishonesty, or possibly by error of judgment, 
or absence of the necessary information unobtainable at time of examina¬ 
tion, which, I think, would be an exceptional case, and, in my opinion, 
the examiner would be responsible for such returns; and if money is 
paid to officials, I should judge the importer or his agent would be more 
than likely the one to furnish the money and pay it. 

15. Personally I have no knowledge of any such bribery; but, if such 
has been the case, I know of no reason why it cannot be repeated as 
successfully in the future as in the past, providing the same corrupt 
official retains his power. 

16. I am of the opinion a change from ad valorem to specific rates 
would be a benefit to the revenue and the importer where it can be 
practically applied, protecting the Government from false invoices and 
the honest importer from dishonest ones. In my opinion, it could not 
justly be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. I have no knowledge that the appraiser, either before or after 
the repeal of the moiety law in 1874, ever made any false reports. 

18. In large American consular districts, such as London, Paris, Ber¬ 
lin, &c., I am of the opinion that it would not’be practical to person¬ 
ally examine articles to be shipped to American ports; but in smaller 
ports, where the articles exported are few in variety, l am of the opin¬ 
ion that it would. I am also of the opinion that our consuls in most 
ports could furnish much more information than they do, which would 
be invaluable to the appraisers in determining correct dutiable value. 

19. I do not think that the executive or judical power should have 
greater jurisdiction in the ascertainment of dutiable values, which is 
to be the basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates. 

21. I am of opinion that the practice does not prevail at this port to 
any extent, if at all, having had considerable experience both as an 
inspector and appraising officer at the arrival of foreign passenger- 
steamers. It is currently reported that the practice does exist at the 
port of New York for the purpose of hastening the examinatian of bag¬ 
gage, and I know of no way of preventing it other than the emplcpy- 
ment of such officers for that duty whose moral character will prevent 
them from aiding and abetting in a transaction which Government 
relies upon them to prevent and the law condemns and forbids. 

22. In the absence of any evidence, I am unable to answer; but, in 
my opinion, the rate of duty on many articles should be reduced, not 
so low as to injure the varied industries of the country, and at the same 
time not so high as to make importation of some merchandise nearly 
prohibitory. On account of excessive rates of duty, it would have a 
tendency to induce dishonest importers and shippers to undervalue 
their merchandise or otherwise evade the law. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 521 

23. In my opinion, it is not, although possibly such may be the case 
at other ports in a less degree. 

24. I have no evidence of such false returns. I am unable to say 
why such persons, if any there be, have not been arrested, indicted, 
and punished. 


No. 62; 

WALTER S. GLOVER—Appointed Assistant Sampler May 26, 1879 ; Examiner June 

11, 1883. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 

Appraiser’s Office , October 2, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular 
of August 27, 1885, in which you propound certain queries, with a re¬ 
quest for full and complete replies. 

In compliance with your request, I beg leave to state that I am em¬ 
ployed as an assistant in the sugar laboratory, and as the only merchan¬ 
dise of which I have any knowledge is sugar, with which my time is 
fully occupied, I am unable to reply to the questions in a manner that 
would satisfy your inquiry. 

As an employe in the sugar laboratory, I have no opportunity of ac¬ 
quiring a knowledge of the application of customs laws to imported 
merchandise, nor means of ascertaining whether the existing laws are 
fully complied with, and the proper amounts of duty collected. Will 
endeavor to answer questions the best I know. 

Question 1.—My knowledge as to this question is that all duties have 
been collected as the law directs. 

Question 2.—Can give no reason why duties have not been collected 
to the full amount where they pay a specific rate. 

Question 3.—The manner in which invoice measurements are verified 
on textile fabrics is by actual weight or measure. 

Question 4.—Have no means of knowing if such collusion exists. 

Question 5.—As to weighing and measuring on wharf, believe that 
it is conducted in a business-like manner. Know of but one case where 
there has been trouble, and in that case the officer was discharged. 

Question 6.—I can see no way of giving information in regard to 
above question. 

Question 7.—I cannot specify articles on which duties have not been 
correctly levied. I do not think I could point them out correctly, if 
there are any such. 

Question 8.—I cannot answer. 

Question 9.—I have no evidence of such having occurred. 

Questions 10 and 11.—My position is such that I have no knowledge 
to aid in giving a correct answer. 

Question 12.—The examiner is, in my opinion, responsible in the 
usual course of business, in fixing the dutiable value. Their salaries 
are from $1,200 to $2,000 yearly. The appraiser is one who, after the 
examiner has verified the merchandise and values, certifies to the same 
after careful consideration. 

Questions 13, 14, and 15. —I am unable to answer. 

Question 16.—As to a change from ad valorem to specific rates, my 
opinion is that on all articles to which said rates could be applied would 
result in an increase of the revenue. 



522 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Questions 17, 18, 19, and 20.—I have had no opportunity of gaining: 
knowledge as to the above questions. 

Question 21.—I have never heard of any bribery of officers on the 
wharf by passengers arriving at this port, but think there may be. If 
there are any dutiable goods, they are sent to the proper place for ex¬ 
amination by the officer in charge, and no fee is to be paid, his com¬ 
pensation from the Government being sufficient. 

Questions 22, 23, and 24.—I cannot answer. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WALTER S. GLOVER, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 63. 

THOMAS H. DUNHAM, Jr.—A ppointed Examiner November 1, 1883. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 3, 1885. 

Dear Sir : In answer to your instructions of the 9th ultimo, that, for 
a specific purpose, you may have ‘ 1 careful and official replies ’ ’ to certain 
enclosed inquiries, I take pleasure to comply as there detailed: 

1. The evidence that the duties have not been fully collected arises 
from the application of ad valorem duties on certain classes of goods, 
when specific duties would have produced an exact and uniform amount 
on the same goods of equal measure and weight. 

2. Decisions of the Department, rendered under a possible misappre¬ 
hension of the facts, have caused purely specific rates, as prescribed 
by law, to be changed to an adverse ad valorem rate. 

3. Your respondent has never had the examination of textile fabrics, 
and therefore cannot say. 

4. No knowledge of any is held by your respondent of collusion be¬ 
tween the importers or other persons and customs officials with the 
intent mentioned. 

5. Your respondent knows of none. 

6. Statistics have not been in possession to enable me to answer these 
queries; but it seems practicable, with our present knowledge, gained 
by such long experience, that more speedy and satisfactory decisions 
and decrees could be obtained by some different method or tribunal 
where facilities might be made for the ascertainment of the intent of 
Congress than is now accomplished through the existing slow, because 
of its overburdened, judicial system. It is thought the Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral, the Solicitor, the district attorney, and the collectors could bring 
the cases to a much more speedy end, and the Government receive its 
dues more promptly. 

7. I have no knowledge through which to answer these questions. 

8. In its application to this port, I should say that the failure to col¬ 
lect the entire amount of duty is because of the action taken by the 
Department, such as one Assistant Secretary deciding on an appeal in 
favor of, and another Secretary adversely to, the Government on the 
same kind of merchandise. Both cannot be right, and the first de¬ 
cision is as often right as is the second. In fact, the methods of appeal 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 523 


from the collector and appraiser, such as the importers appearing per¬ 
sonally and by attorney before the Department and there pleading their 
cases, is prolific of injustice and loss to the Government. 

9. No case of the kind has come to my knowledge. 

10. To the question contained in the first part of this article, I reply 
in the negative; to the latter part, in the affirmative. 

11. No undervaluations are now known to exist to your respondent 
and those that have existed were brought before the proper tribunal 
without his personal or official connection therewith. 

12. Under the present system the examiner is responsible. The 
salary of your respondent is $1,400 per annum. As the examiners have 
separate classes of goods to scrutinize and report upon, the aggregate 
number of questions of doubt that arise with them at large ports of 
entry is necessarily great; and as these questions go to the appraiser for 
him to deliberate upon and solve, so he must be an encyclopaedia of 
rates of duty, classifications, and values, and decide them rapidly, or 
he will not have time to certify to the current reports, much less inspect 
them. The assistant appraiser should have the duty, in addition to 
any other he may now have, of inspecting, and, if need be, cause the 
revision of any and all reports made by the examiners, and thus become, 
what he now is not, responsible with the appraiser and examiner for 
errors of his own committing that may be found in reports to the col¬ 
lector. 

13. None, to my knowledge. 

14. I have never known of such. 

15. If any now exist, I should say that changes from ad valorem te 
Specific duty would aid materially in its future prevention. 

16. Yes, emphatically, except in the case of textile fabrics. This 
class of goods not being handled by your respondent, he is not qualified 
to judge. The ascertainment and finding of dutiable values may be 
said to be more fruitful of dissatisfaction than that of all other causes 
combined, and bears a like relation to the customs that the old income- 
tax did to the internal revenue. 

To transfer any considerable quantity of goods to specific duty, with¬ 
out doubt would necessitate an increase of the force of weighers and 
gaugers; but it is equally safe to predict that the existing amount of 
duty, nevertheless, would be maintained. 

17. It is believed that any false reports by appraisers in consequence 
of the repeal of the “ moiety act” of 1874 have been offset by reduced 
rates and additions to the “free-list” by legislation since that date. 

18. It is impracticable. While an American consul should be some¬ 
thing different from an ‘ 1 ornamental representative ’ ’ of this Republic, 
it would seem that the qualifications of a detective is not necessary; 
that he should be in harmony with all other customs officials, especially 
in time of peace; and with his own Department he should be exact, 
prompt, and watchful. In fact, a full compliance with the require¬ 
ments of the existing rules and regulations, as far as lies in his power, 
certainly would be satisfactory. 

19. Only in so far as to aid, if possible, the appraisers in the finding 
of a true value. 

20. A different examiner from myself has the supervision of all the 
wool that is entered at this port. I respectfully would refer this ques¬ 
tion to him. His name is W. H. Dimond. 


524 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


21. No charges have been made against any official at this port to 
the knowledge of your respondent. He, therefore, presumes that the 
present system is efficient and the employes satisfactorily honest. 

22. In reply, I would say that the amount of smuggling, if any, is so 
trivial that it is buried out of sight in the question of valuation, and 
therefore need not be feared. 

23. Not knowing the reasons for the failure at New York, I cannot 
say, but believe that the Department is fully able, and at present does 
enforce the revenue law at this port. 

24. No such returns or reports are known to the writer as having 
been made. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOS. H. DURHAM, Jr., 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

/Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 64. 

J. "W. TRAFTON—Appointed Clerk July 31, 1875 ; Examiner September 2 , 1876. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 5, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor, in reply to circular from the Treasury De¬ 
partment marked u strictly confidential, ” of date September 9, 1885, 
to make the following statement: 

1. Article 336 of the Treasury Regulations prescribes that 1 1 the clerks 
of the collector and naval officer charged with the examination of en¬ 
tries will compare the classification made by the importers with the 
description of the goods given in the invoice, and see that the several 
articles are entered at the rates provided by law.” This duty, if per¬ 
formed at all at this port, must be done, generally, in a very hurried 
manner, and my own opinion is that the entry clerk passes the entry 
as marked by the importer, without any examination whatever; conse¬ 
quently, if the invoice offered for entry is one covering the same kind 
of goods, but paying different rates of duty, depending upon the cost 
per square yard, and requiring some little work to mark the invoice 
correctly, the importer is allowed to make entry at one rate of duty. 
This is always corrected at this office by each examiner in making his 
report upon the invoice, and I have no knowledge of any loss to the 
Government in consequence, but so long as the regulations require the 
invoice to be classified as correctly as possible without seeing the goods, 
the provisions of the article should be enforced. 

2. I have no knowledge of any kind of merchandise being passed at 
other than the rate of duty prescribed by law. 

3. The invoiced measurements of all textile fabrics are generally 
accepted as being correct, except in such instances where a doubt as 
to the honesty of the importer or the correctness of the invoice may 
arise, and then the goods are measured. 

4. I have no evidence of any collusion between any person making 
an entry of merchandise and the deputy collector or' entry clerk; but 
as there is nothing to prevent such collusion, think the law should be 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 525 ' 


amended so that the naval officer should designate a certain number 
of packages for examination in addition to those ordered up by the 
collector. 

5. I have no means of knowing the manner in which the duty of 
weighing or measuring goods on the wharf is performed. 

6. In my opinion, the law as it now stands is sufficient to secure jus¬ 
tice both to the importer and the United States Treasury Department. 
In regard to the number of suits on file, have no information whatever. 

7 and 8. Silks and German dress-goods. It is a fact that our Boston 
importers can buy these goods in New York cheaper than they can 
land them. This probably arises not from dishonesty of officials, but 
from the difficulty of getting the correct foreign values of these goods. 

9. Have no reason to believe that the appraisers at this port have 
ever reported false dutiable values. 

10. Since the act of March 3, 1883, went into fothere has been a 
great deal of doubt and conflict of opinion in regard to the dutiable 
value of various articles of merchandise, par. 7 of section 2513 be¬ 
ing generally construed by all importers as intending to relieve them 
from the payment of duties on all cartons and coverings of all kinds, no 
matter whether necessary for the proper marketable condition of the 
merchandise or for its protection while in transit; consequently, an act 
which was intended for the partial relief of an importer has been taken 
advantage of by them in various attempts to defraud the Government 
out of its just dues in the amount of duties on imported merchandise. In 
fact, the tendency now is by most all shippers of goods to reduce the 
dutiable value of the merchandise and make it up by the most ex¬ 
orbitant charges for cartons, rolling and papering, strings, labels, 
cases, &c., which they claim are not dutiable, and which amount in some 
cases to over 20 per cent, of the whole invoice. In view of this fact, 
in my opinion, this section of the tariff should be amended so as sim¬ 
ply to make the outside covering in which the goods are packed for 
shipment free of duty. 

11. I do not think it possible to make any safe estimate of under¬ 
valuations. 

12. The examiner, although official courtesy would oblige the ex¬ 
aminer to consult with the appraiser in cases where a large amount was 
involved, or where any doubt should arise as to values or rates of duties. 
The salaries of examiners at this port are from $1,200 to $2,000, one 
only receiving the latter amount. The appraiser’s duty must neces¬ 
sarily be confined mostly to official correspondence and certifying to 
the reports made upon the invoices by the examiners, at the same time 
the efficiency of the force depends a great deal upon its head. 

13. I have no evidence of any official in the consular department 
giving false foreign values to any appraiser. 

14. I think not, unless there is proof of dishonesty. I know of no 
money being paid to officials for the purpose of getting false reports of 
dutiable values. 

15. If false valuations have been brought about by bribery in the 
past, I know of no reason why the same should not continue. 

16. In my opinion, a specific rate of duty on all kinds of goods is the 
only remedy for the undervaluation of merchandise, and from tests made 
on textile fabrics am satisfied that it can be applied to them with good 
results. 


526 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


17. I have no knowledge of any false reports having been made at 
any time by any appraiser. 

18. I do not think it would be practicable for consular agents to per¬ 
sonally inspect goods and certify to the correctness of invoiced values; 
but I do think that they should critically examine invoices presented 
for certification, and see that the three copies are identically the same, 
and that the footing of each sheet of an invoice is comprised in the total 
amount to which they certify. It is now the practice of many makers 
of invoices to make a separate sheet containing all charges for cartons 
and other expenses, many of which enter into the dutiable value of the 
merchandise. In some cases this sheet is attached to all three copies of the 
invoice, but the amount is never included in that certified to by the consul. 
In other cases this bill of charges is simply attached to one copy of the 
invoice, which goes to the importer. Then, again, it does not accom¬ 
pany either copy of the invoice, but is sent direct to the importer. 
Ten shillings and six pence (10s. 6d.) is the fee charged by all consuls 
in England for certifying to an invoice. 

19. I do not see any necessity for any change in the law in relation to 
reappraisements of merchandise. 

20. This is a matter with which I am unfamiliar, and can give no in¬ 
formation. 

21. I have no evidence of money being paid by passengers to inspec¬ 
tors for the purpose of expediting the examination of baggage. If 
such practice prevails, it can only be prevented by a strict enforcement 
of the law and punishment of both parties engaged in the transaction. 

22. I think not. So long as there is a tariff and dishonest men, so 
long will there be undervaluation and attempts to evade the payment 
of duties. 

23. I presume that the same reasons for the failure of the Treasury 
Department to enforce the revenue law in Hew York would apply to 
all ports. 

24. I am not cognizant of any false returns or reports of dutiable 
values. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JHO. W. TRAFTOH, 

Examiner . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


Ho. 65. 

B. R. WALES—Appointed Clerk January 5, 1873; Examiner December 1, 1884. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Office, October 5, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to circular dated September 9, 1885, I have the honor 
to submit the following : 

1. As far as my knowledge reaches, the evidence is strong that the 
law has been followed. 

2. The weight of evidence is in favor of obedience to the laws. 

3. In many cases it is impracticable to test the quantities of textile 
fabrics, and if the importers are well-known merchants it is seldom 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 527 


necessary. If, however, there is the slightest suspicion of improper 
dealing, it is our custom to verify by actual measurement. The lack 
of facilities for rebaling goods prevents us from verifying invoices as 
often as we should if we had them. 

4. The absence of evidence forces me to believe that nothing of the 
kind has ever occurred. There is a report that such collusion took 
place several years ago, and the case is now in the hands of the district 
attorney. 

5. I know of no evidence, and, from my knowledge of the men em¬ 
ployed, should hesitate to give credence to any reports to that effect. 

6. To this question I cannot reply, as the matter belongs rather to 
law department. 

7. Importers here in Boston say that articles such as silks, laces, and 
dress-goods, especially those manufactured in France and other countries 
of Continental Europe, can be bought in New York, duty paid, at a 
less price than they can import direct from the manufacturers, and in¬ 
stances can be quoted in proof of such assertions. 

8. The cause of the failure to collect the full amount of duty is diffi¬ 
cult to comprehend. The most charitable view is that it is owing to 
the lack of that technical knowledge of the cost of manufacture, and 
hence the market value, which is best obtained from an actual experi¬ 
ence in the mill where these goods are manufactured. 

9. Speaking of the port of Boston, I do not believe that false values 
have been reported by the appraiser. 

10. The act of March 3, 1883, section 7, repealing charges for boxes, 
&c., has occasioned much disturbance, as importers deduct the value of 
cartons even when the goods are sold with the carton. The value of 
cas&s also, in many instances, seems to be exorbitant. 

11. I do not think that there has been any undervaluation at this 
port—that is to say, any systematic undervaluation. There may be 
occasional and accidental cases, but no percentage could be made.. 

12. In every case the examiner is the responsible party, and the one 
who is. called upon to fix the values of merchandise. If he is not satis¬ 
fied, he may refer the matter to the appraiser. The salary of examiners 
varies from $1,200 to $2,000, one receiving the last amount. The ap¬ 
praiser may be acquainted with the work of the examiners, or he may 
be merely the clerk to approve the recommendations of the examiners. 

13. There is no evidence that the consuls have knowingly assented to 
false values. They might, however, take more pains and assure them¬ 
selves that all the charges were included. In many instances these 
charges are placed upon a separate sheet and never reach the examiner, 
but are kept by the merchant. 

14. I have not the necessary information. 

15. To this I must necessarily make the same reply. 

16. My own opinion is that specific rates could be applied to all textile 
fabrics, and certainly the duty could be more easily collected. Of 
necessity, this diminishes the tendency to bribery, if such exists, as it 
removes the advantages. 

17. I very much doubt if false values, whether made by the importer, 
appraiser, or any one else, have been increased by the repeal of the 
“moiety law.” I have always noticed that a law offering rewards for 
the detection of crime apparently increases the number of criminals. 
I have always believed that the reward was more sought after than the 
detection of crime. 


528 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


18. It would be utterly impracticable for the American consuls in the 
large districts, either by themselves or by deputy, to ascertain the true 
values. Such a proceeding would necessarily cause delay, and com¬ 
plaints would be quickly made to the Government by those inconven¬ 
ienced. On many invoices the amount of $2.50 is acknowledged as 
having been received by the consul, and I believe that to be the amount 
customarily received. 

19. This method seems autocratic, but any other would divide responsi¬ 
bility ; hence I see no‘advantage in such a division. If the appraiser 
is a business man, thoroughly acquainted with his duties and capable of 
fulfilling them, the sense of personal responsibility would make him 
very careful, much more so than if he thought there was a higher 
reviewing power. 

20. This calls for a high practical knowledge, and hence I cannot 
answer it. 

21. I do not believe that such is the case here. Among all my 
acquaintances who have arrived at this port, I have never heard such 
a thing even hinted at, and I am positive, if such had been the custom, 
that knowledge of the fact would have reached me. 

22. It is a well-known principle of law that the greater the induce¬ 
ment the more liability that the law will be broken; hence, the higher 
the duty the greater the inducements to defraud. Some of the high 
duties are almost prohibitory, and offer a premium for dishonesty. 

23. Boston importers are usually merchants who buy outright. The 
consignment of goods offers the greatest inducements to fraud, and are 
the most difficult to detect. The competition of buyers is a great safe¬ 
guard against undervaluation, as it encourages a close watch upon the 
sales of competitors. 

24. It is wellnigh impossible to collect evidence of fraud. When 
parties who have been in collusion quarrel, a chance exists that such 
evidence may perhaps be given. Coming from one who is particeps 
criminis, such evidence cannot be received implicitly, and must be sub¬ 
stantiated by other testimony. It is of no benefit to cause the'arrest 
unless the conviction is reasonably sure to follow, for that would arouse 
the sympathies of the public in favor of such a suspected person. 

I have the honor to remain your obedient servant, 

B. B. WALES, 

Examiner* 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 66. 

JAMES BIRD—Appointed Inspector April 5, 1871; Clerk April 29, 1871; Examiner 

April 23, 1872. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Office, October 6, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to the circular from your office, dated the 9th ultimo, 
in which you request that careful and official replies be made to cer¬ 
tain inquiries therein set forth, I have the honor to submit the follow¬ 
ing answers: 

1. As far as my knowledge extends, the rates of duty have been 
levied and collected as the law prescribes. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 529 


2. As far as my knowledge extends, the duties on articles paying 
specific rates of duty have been fully collected. 

3. I have no knowledge on this subject, textile fabrics not being 
passed in my department. 

4. I have no knowledge on this subject. 

5. I have no knowledge on this subject. 

6. I have not sufficient knowledge on this subject to enter into the 
matter understandingly. 

7. I have no definite knowledge on this subject. 

8. I have no definite knowledge on this subject. 

9. I can only say that, as far as my knowledge extends, the full and 
proper amounts of duties have been collected on merchandise imported 
into this port. 

10. Although in some instances there has been a doubt as to what 
elements enter into the dutiable value of imported merchandise, the 
recent interpretations of the law by the Department, as set forth by 
Department decisions, have, I think, determined most of the questions 
in dispute. 

11. Having no definite information or knowledge of the subject, I 
cannot say; but probably not. 

12. The examiner, I should say, would be chiefly responsible for a 
false return of value to the collector. The salaries in this office range 
from $1,200 to $2,500, the latter amount being the salary of the drug 
examiner. One examiner receives a salary of $2,000, the others from 
$1,200 to $1,800. The appraisers at this port are, in my opinion, fully 
acquainted with all the details of the business connected with the classi¬ 
fication and valuation of imported merchandise, and, although relying 
upon the integrity, knowledge, and judgment of their examiners, whose 
reports they indorse, they have a careful supervision of all the details 
connected therewith. 

13. I have no knowledge on this subject. 

14. It can be fairly said that the failure has come of dishonesty or 
gross incompetency-of the appraising officers, and if money has been 
paid, it has been done by dishonest importers or their agents. 

15. If the practice of bribery has obtained, it is likely to continue in 
the future. 

16. I am decidedly of the opinion that a change from ad valorem to 
specific rates would have a tendency to benefit the revenue and protect 
the Government in a great measure from fraud. As to specific rates 
on textile fabrics, I have no knowledge on the subject, they not coming 
under my supervision. 

17. I have no knowledge on the subject. 

18. In my opinion, it would be impracticable in the larger American 
consular districts to examine articles and verify values; but perhaps in 
the smaller it might be done with advantage. In my opinion, foreign 
governments would complain at any vexatious delay in examining 
values and certifying invoices. Fees exacted in England, 10s. 
sterling. 

19. In my opinion, the laws under which dutiable values are deter¬ 
mined are good and sufficient ones. 

20. I have no knowledge on this subject, it not being passed in my 
department. 

21. It is a matter of common report that these dishonest practices 
prevail at New York. (I have heard no other port mentioned.) In my 

34 u 


530 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


opinion, the employment of honest and reliable officers would obviate 
the difficulty. 

22. In some instances the high rate of duty on certain articles has 
undoubtedly led to smuggling and other dishonest practices. 

23. As to New York, or any other port than Boston, I have no defi¬ 
nite knowledge. In my opinion, the duties at the port of Boston have 
been honestly and faithfully collected. 

24. For the reason that the guilty jiarties have been successful in 
keeping their transactions secret. 

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES BIBD, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. 


No. 67. 


CHA>S. J. COLLINS—Appointed Examiner May 29, 1883. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Office , October 6, 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of your circular of August 
27, 1885, (received September 10, 1885,) containing certain questions 
relative to the administration of the customs laws, and also the circular 
of September 30, 1885, which has just come to hand, owing to absence 
on vacation. 

I desire, most respectfully, to state that I have held my present posi¬ 
tion—that of assistant in the sugar lanoratory—for a little more than 
two years, and, as I have had no experience in any other department, 
I have little or no knowledge of the application of the laws to imported 
merchandise, or its results, to aid me in properly complying with your 
request. 

As my duties as assistant in the sugar laboratory are such as to de¬ 
mand all my time and attention, it leaves me no opportunity for learning 
of matters, a knowledge of which is necessary to satisfy your inquiry. 

For the reasons given, I can only answer a few of the questions. 

Question 1.—I have no evidence. 

Question 2.—I know of none. 

Question 3.—I have observed the examiners in the dry-goods depart¬ 
ment connected with this office both weighing and measuring fabrics, 
and, from this, presume that these are the usual tests. 

Question 4.—I know of no collusion between persons making entry 
and Government officials. Have never heard of or know of a bogus 
package being sent to the appraiser’s office as an examination package; 
think, if it was the case, rumors of its discovery might reach me. 

Question 5.—I have no evidence of any and have heard none. 

Question 6.—The whole subject of this question I am entirely unac¬ 
quainted with. 

Questions 7, 8, and 9.—I cannot answer. 

Question 10.—I personally have no knowledge of conflict of opinion 
between the appraisers and their subordinates as to the determination 
of the dutiable values of imported merchandise. The subject has been 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 531 


much, discussed in my presence, and, in my opinion, the appraisers and 
their subordinates are in full accord. 

Question 11.—I can make no estimate whatever. 

Question 12.—I consider the examiner primarily and chiefly respon¬ 
sible for false returns of value, inasmuch as he has to deal directly with 
the merchandise, and it is his duty to make such inquiries as will clearly 
establish its correctness. I have no knowledge of appraisers at other 
ports and their practices in relation to invoices, but at this port I know 
that the appraiser has personal knowledge, in very many cases, of the 
merchandise under examination, and can thus certify to the reports of 
his subordinates without hesitation. 

Questions 13, 14, and 15.—I have no knowledge. 

Question 16.—The opinion prevails that a change from ad valorem 
to specific rates would be a benefit, and if bribery exists it would soon 
cease, as there would no longer be any advantage to be gained through 
its agency. 

Question 17.—I do not know. 

Question 10.—I have not much information relative to the duty of 
United States consuls abroad, or the amount of labor attaching to their 
positions. Presume that in some cases the duties are so light that the con¬ 
suls might verify, beyond question, the correctness of invoiced values. 

Question 19.—I have no opinion. 

Question 20.—I cannot prepare such a paper as you desire. 

Question 21.—I presume money is often paid, though I do not know 
it. I should look with suspicion and doubt upon an official who would 
receive or a passenger who would offer money for such doubtful ser¬ 
vice, and, being equally guilty, would consider them deserving of equal 
punishment, which I presume the law provides. 

Questions 22, 23, and 24.—I am unable to answer. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CHAS. J. COLLINS, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 68. 

THEODORE E. CURRIER—Appointed Examiner August 10, 1865. 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser's Office , October 7, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to submit the following answers to questions 
asked for in circular of the 9th ultimo: 

1. As far as I know, duties have been collected as the law prescribed. 

2. I have no evidence that the full amount of duties ass ssed on goods 
paying purely specific rates have not been collected. 

3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are generally ac¬ 
cepted as correct; should there be any suspicion that the yards or 
metres were not correct as invoiced, it has been our custom to test one 
or more pieces. 

4. I have no evidence of collusion between person or persons making 
an entry of several packages of similar goods on an invoice, and the 
entry clerk or deputy collector to send to appraiser’s stores for exam¬ 
ination a bogus or false package as a fair sample of one in ten. 



532 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


5. I have no means of knowing, as my duties have been in the ap¬ 
praiser’s office. 

6. In my line of duty I have not any way of ascertaining the facts 
as asked for in Question 6. 

7. It is a fact that importers of dry-goods at this port cannot import 
piece-silks and German worsted dress-goods and compete with mer¬ 
chants who buy the same kind of goods through manufacturers’ agents 
in New York. In my opinion, the full amount of duty can be collected 
on silks and worsted dress-goods by assessing a specific duty. 

8. I know nothing positively. From what I hear, I should think it 
was caused either by indolence or dishonesty. 

9. I have no satisfactory evidence. 

10. There has been some confusion in fixing the value of goods, or 
the cartons and outside coverings. The standard to be applied is more 
clear now than it was at the time of passage of the new tariff act, March 
3, 1883. 

11. I do not know. 

12. In the regular routine of business the examiner is primarily re¬ 
sponsible for the values of merchandise. Should there be any uncer¬ 
tainty of correct values, the appraiser would be consulted. The salaries 
of the examiners are $1,200, $1,400, $1,600, $1,800, and one at $2,000 
per annum. The appraiser has charge of all correspondence of the 
office, and it is impracticable for him to have a special knowledge of 
all merchandise examined. 

13. I have no evidence. 

14. I do not know. 

15. Past experience shows there is chance for improvement. 

16. I think that a change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
be a benefit to the revenue, as dishonest importers could not be bene¬ 
fited by undervaluation of their goods. In my opinion, specific rates 
could be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. I do not know of any false reports by the appraisers at any time. 

18. It is my opinion that the American consular agents abroad could, 
in many instances, be of great assistance to the revenue by ascertain¬ 
ing values before certifying to invoices. The fee exacted by the con¬ 
suls in London and England for certifying invoices is 10 shillings 6 
pence sterling. 

19. The appraisers ought to be better qualified to be judge of values 
of goods than any others. I see no reason for limiting their responsi¬ 
bility. 

20. The wool-question I cannot answer, as no one but the expert 
examiner can make a correct report upOn it. 

21. Any passenger who pays an inspector money for examining bag¬ 
gage should have his seized, and any officer receiving money should 
be dismissed the service. 

22. In my opinion, a high rate of duty is a temptation to the dishonest 
to smuggle. 

23. I do not think it is true at this port. 

24. If false returns and reports to the collector have been made, no 
pne could be punished without evidence. 

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

THEODORE E. CURRIER, 

Examiner c 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 533 


:No. 69. 

GEORGE Y. WELLINGTON—Appointed Examiner November 15, 1871. 

i 

Port of Boston, Mass., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 7, 1885. 

Sir: In response to your circular, marked “strictly confidential, ” 
dated September 9, 1885, I have the honor to reply that I am one of 
three examiners of the appraiser’s department in Boston employed in 
what is known as the “hardware division.” In this division, the 
merchandise to be examined covers all manufactured articles, not 
including dry-goods, machinery, earthen, china, and glass ware, drugs, 
chemicals, liquors, and cigars. There is probably a larger variety of 
classifications under the tariff law in this division than in any other 
in this department. In reply to your different questions, I can only 
answer from own knowledge and experience. 

Query 1.—I have never had reason to doubt that the tariff law at the 
port of Boston has been honestly enforced and the duties collected as 
prescribed by law. If any complaints have been made, I have not 
heard of them. 

Query 2.—I have no knowledge but what, when specific rates of duty 
are assessed, the full amount of duty has been collected. In the hard¬ 
ware division we have always been particular in obtaining the true 
weights and measures where specific duties apply. 

Query 3.—I have had no experience in examining textile fabrics, 
therefore am ignorant of the tests applied. 

Query 4.—I have never heard it intimated that at this port there was 
ever any collusion between the importer, deputy collector, and entry- 
clerk as to ordering bogus packages for examination, nor have I ever 
heard an importer dictate to the entry clerk the packages he wished 
sent for examination. 

Query 5.—Never having visited the wharves while the Government 
officers were engaged at their work, I am unable to state whether the 
work there has been properly or improperly done. 

Query 6.—The present tariff law contains many points of doubtful 
meaning, and, in my opinion, should be amended. Protests and ap¬ 
peals from importers who honestly differ with the appraisers are of 
daily occurrence, and many suits against the collectors are instituted, 
all arising from the different constructions placed upon the law. I 
know not how many suits are now pending, but prasume the number is 
large. Some means should be adopted, either by legislation or other¬ 
wise, to hasten the decisions of the suits now pending, and provision 
made to have some tribunal before which suits in customs cases may be 
tried, and the decisions there made to be final. The present system is 
insufficient to hear and act upon all these suits. 

Query 7.—I am not acquainted.with the methods of doing business at 
the custom-house at New York, nor with any officer connected with 
the customs or appraiser’s office at that port. The frauds reported 
from there, in my opinion, arise from the class of foreign agents and 
merchants to whom lying is a pastime; they have no interest in this 
country only to cheat the Government and buy up, if possible, its 
officials. Specific duties would in a great measure counteract these 
frauds, and the examining officers should be true and tried men, sup¬ 
plied through the Department with every information possible pertain¬ 
ing to the foreign market value of the merchandise imported. 


534 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Query 8.—I cannot understand why the Government, when such 
frauds were carried on so openly as reported, did not investigate the 
matter and bring the guilty parties to justice. I do not think it was 
indolence or ignorance, but sheer rascality; and I would judge that the 
conspiracy extended from New York to Washington, yet I have no 
positive knowledge of any kind relating to the matter. 

Query 9.—I have no knowledge whatever of any false returns being 
made to the collector from the appraiser’s office at this port. Due 
attention is always paid at this office to representations made by con¬ 
sular and special agents, and if their statements are sustained by good 
evidence, they are adopted. 

Query 10.—There has been confusion as to the elements of dutiable 
values, especially since the tariff of March, 1883, came in force. The 
conflict between the importers and the Government is chiefly as to the 
elements of value of dutiable goods—whether the duty attaches to the 
naked goods or to the same with the usual coverings and cartons in¬ 
cluded in the condition they were purchased. Personally, I believe the 
intent of the law is to apply to all merchandise in the condition with 
its usual coverings that it is exposed and offered for sale in the mar¬ 
kets of the world, and the duty to be assessed is upon such merchandise 
at its true market value on the day it is shipped from the port of ex¬ 
portation. 

Query 11.—I hardly believe that a safe average estimate of the per¬ 
centage of undervaluation can be made for more than one year, if for 
that time, as so many elements have to be considered in reaching the 
facts. 

Query 12.—The examiner usually makes all returns on the invoices of 
merchandise examined by him, said report being indorsed by the ap¬ 
praiser or assistant appraiser. In this office the examiner consults with 
the appraiser on all questions of doubt. The salary of the examiners 
here is $1,600 and $1,800 per year. I do not believe, from what I know 
of the corps of examiners here, that there is one who would knowingly 
make a false report upon any invoice. 

Query 13.—I have no evidence of any consul presenting a false invoice, 
knowing it to be such, to the appraisers; yet I think the consuls should 
scrutinize the invoices they certify to with more care than at present. 

Query 14.—An examiner’s position is not an enviable one; his work 
and responsibilities are great. On his judgment mainly the Government 
depends for the honest assessment of all its duties. Shut up year after 
year within the four walls of a building, he is supposed to know the 
market prices of the world. From my own experience with the large 
variety of merchandise I examine, I often have to seek for expert 
knowledge from those whom I think will give me an honest opinion. 
I do not believe that false values are reported as correct from this office 
knowingly by any examiner, and I do not believe that any examiner 
connected with this office ever accepted a bribe. I do not believe there 
was ever any corruption fund connected with the customs service at 
Boston. 

Query 15.—The only way to guard against dishonest practices is a 
reorganization of the different departments, so that a proper supervis¬ 
ion can be had over all officers; and even then there will be some fraud. 

Query 16.—Specific rates should be applied wherever possible, and 
if it were only possible to have a tariff for revenue only, specific rates 
would be the only rates. I cannot answer as to textile fabrics. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 535 


Query 17.—I believe in a “moiety law,” but not such an one as was 
repealed in 1874. I think one could be framed, not oppressive, but at 
the same time beneficial to the interests of the Government. 

Query 18.—I think it would be impracticable for American consuls at 
the larger ports to personally examine articles shipped from thence; 
but in the smaller consular districts I think it could be done success¬ 
fully. The Treasury Department should have at the larger ports its 
agents to personally examine and report to the Department as to values 
and the methods adopted abroad to cheat the Government here; also, 
agents to travel from one consulate to another in the smaller districts. 
The information gained should be sent to the general and principal 
appraisers at the larger ports, for their benefit and for the examiners. I 
do not believe the foreign governments would object to this. The con¬ 
sular fee for certifying to each invoice is $2.50. 

Query 19.—I think the executive and judicial powers should have 
such jurisdiction as to be able to obtain every fact as to the true duti¬ 
able value of all merchandise. 

Query 20.—I am not conversant with the assessing of duty on wool, 
never having had any experience therein. 

Query 21.—I presume the practice of paying money to officers by 
passengers to facilitate the examination of baggage does prevail, but I 
have never seen it done or ever heard a passenger arriving at this port 
stating that he had paid any fee for baggage examination. The proper 
course is to make it a penal offence to give or receive any perquisites 
for such service. 

Query 22.—A high tariff is tempting to a smuggler. The old war 
tariff twenty years ago caused a large amount of smuggling. There 
would be less evasion of the law under a low tariff than with a high 
tariff. 

Query 23.—I think the port of Hew York an exception to any other 
port. The importations there are immense, and the importers are gen¬ 
erally foreign agents, who hesitate at nothing in order to swindle the 
Government. 

Query 24.—That the Government, in justice to its honest officials, 
should have punished the dishonest ones is true, but why it did not I 
cannot tell. 

I have answered all the questions in your circular as well as I can, 
and, in closing, allow me to apologize for the delay. During September 
my two colleagues took their vacation, and my work was largely in¬ 
creased, so that I had not the time to give to these questions the thought 
and care that I wished. With this explanation, 

I remain, respectfully, yours, 

GEO. Y. WELLINGTON, 

Examiner . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


536 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


PORT OF BROWNSVILLE, TEX. 


No. to. 

TAMES O. LUBY—Appointed Collector May 13, 1884. 

Custom-House, Brownsville, Tex., 

Collector’s Office , September 9, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your commu¬ 
nication of August 27. 1885, and, in reply to the inquiries contained 
therein, I would state that many of the questions submitted for replies 
thereto, particularly in regard to pending suits in respect to rates of 
duties and the importation of textile fabrics; that by reason of the lim¬ 
ited class of importations into this district, principally from Mexico, 
and consisting of commodities upon which no duties are levied, and 
the dutiable importations being of live animals, wool, &c., the ques¬ 
tions of value and class upon appraisement seldom result in a legal or 
other dispute. 

I will now proceed to answer the questions seriatim: 

1. There is no evidence that the duties accruing upon importations 
into this district within the last few years have not been levied and col¬ 
lected as the law prescribes. 

2. No j as in answer to first question. 

3. There have been no importations upon invoice of textile fabrics. 
Some few articles of small value imported by passengers from Mexico 
have been assessed for duty, basing such assessment upon the number 
of threads per square inch tested by T-inch magnifying or microscope 
glass. 

4. There is no evidence of collusion. Examinations are made by 
myself, or some officer designated in each instance, of such packages 
imported. 

5. None. From personal supervision, am satisfied weighing, &c., 
correct. 

6. No suits instituted; and in respect to rates of duty, the other ques¬ 
tions embodied in this cannot be answered by me, by reason of no cir¬ 
cumstances described existing in this district. 

7. There is no evidence of a failure in this district to levy and collect 
the entire and full amount of duty prescribed by law. 

8. None. 

9. None. 

10. No confusion, &c., in appraising department, probably owing to 
limited importations, although it would appear that the statutes and 
decisions in regard to appraisements are ample to prevent such con¬ 
fusion, even were the articles imported more numerous in class. 

11. No evidence of undervaluation by appraisers. 

12. In answering this question, it becomes necessary to describe the 
manner of appraisements in this district, particularly in regard to live 
animals, which is the principal item of dutiable importation. The 
several consular officers in Mexico bordering upon this district have 
been very strict in noting upon invoices any variance between the pur¬ 
chaser’s value and the market value of the port from whence imported, 
and thereby prevented undervaluation. The manner of importing these 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 537 


animals is by swimming the river at the regular licensed ferries of this 
port and the several sub-ports of the district. The permit to land is 
placed in the hands of a mounted inspector, to supervise such landing, 
examine and report upon number, marks, and values. The inspector 
thus becomes primarily and chiefly responsible for a false return of 
value to the collector, but, as the market values are so well known, it 
would be almost an impossibility to introduce animals undervalued by 
the importer without detection* Should a variance occur when reported 
by inspector, personal inspection is had. In the case of wool, &c., 
personal examinations are made by myself or deputy. 

13. No. 

14. No evidence, as heretofore stated. 

15. No. 

16. In my opinion, the imposition of ad valorem duties tends to 
frauds upon the revenue. 

17. Not in this district. 

18. I am informed that it is the invariable practice of consular offi¬ 
cers along the Mexican frontier to examine dutiable articles ^hipped to 
the United States, and no complaints from that Government or shippers 
appear to have been made. 

19. I consider the law as it now exists, if properly administered, to 
be sufficiently just to both importers and the Government. In our 
State law, the person rendering property for taxation can appeal from 
the decision of the assessor to what is termed a board of equalization, 
consisting of the county commissioners, whose action is final as to values 
placed on property assessed. As this board rarely occupies over two 
days in their deliberations, an injunction or mandamus would scarcely 
lie against them, unless it was sued out before they adjourned. As 
their functions as a board of equalization ceases on adjournment, there 
is no law whereby they could be compelled to reconvene. Adequate 
provision is, however, made in our State penal laws for the punish¬ 
ment of boards of equalization, assessors, and persons rendering prop¬ 
erty for assessment who might conspire to defraud the Government by 
the undervaluation of property assessed for taxation. 

20. The class of wool imported into this district is what is termed 
u coarse Mexican,” properly belonging to class three under the present 
tariff. It is a light, dry wool, generally free from dirt, and loses very lit¬ 
tle from scouring, probably not over 20 per cent.; and, in view of the fact 
that merino wools of class one will lose 60 per cent, and over when 
scoured, it appears to me that the present tariff discriminates in favor 
of the Mexican wool. As there are no wools imported into this dis¬ 
trict but of class three, as described, I have not been afforded an op¬ 
portunity of observing the various workings of the tariff on wools of 
other grades. 

The wool industry of this State previous to and up to the close of 
the war of the rebellion was but an experiment. After the war, the 
wool tariff under act of March 2,1867, coupled with the adaptability of 
of this State for wool culture, gave an impetus to that industry. Within 
later years the increase in price of land and labor, incidental to sheep, 
raising, has caused a decline in that industry. While the present tariff 
might be more uniform and less complicated, I think it affords ample 
protection to the wool industry of the country, and enables the wool- 
growers of the United States to compete with the cheap labor of foreign 
countries, and at the same time our Government derives a return there- 


538 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


from, which would be not the case if the tariff was strictly prohibitory 
in its character. 

21. All dutiable articles in baggage of passengers is detained until 
duties are paid at the custom-house, and there is no evidence that cus¬ 
toms inspectors have permitted any dutiable articles to pass without 
payment of duties. 

22 . There is an illicit smuggling of cigars and mescal (a Mexican 
liquor) on a small scale, the duties on which are in the nature of a pro¬ 
hibitory tax 5 but no serious result to the revenue is caused by the small 
amounts introduced by these petty smugglers, and I would dislike to 
suggest any reduction in articles of luxury, such as cigars and liquors. 

23. Not known. 

24. None to be reported. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

JAMES O. LUBY, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , Z>. C. 


PORT OF BUFFALO. 


No. 71. 

A. D. BISSELL—Appointed Collector May 15, 1885. 

Custom-House, Buffalo, N. Y., 

Collectors Office, October 3, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully replying to your circular letter of August 27, 
(“strictly confidential,”) I would state that the subjects therein con¬ 
tained do not seem to apply to this district. I have determined, how¬ 
ever, to give specific answers to the questions therein propounded. 

1. No evidence of any neglect, either intentional or otherwise. 

2. No evidence of any kind. 

3. Goods are compared with invoices, and verified by measurements. 
Tests are made according to best obtainable methods' to arrive at ac¬ 
curate results, exercising all necessary care in detail. 

4 . No evidence of fraudulent designation of packages. 

5. No weighing done on wharves at this port at the present time. 

6 . No recommendation on this proposition. 

7. No information as to whether the entire amount of duty prescribed 
by law has been collected at port of New York. 

" 8 . No evidence that any Treasury official has been, either directly 
or indirectly, implicated. 

9. No evidence of present appraiser making false statements. This 
is also true of previous appraiser. Sub-questions 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 are an¬ 
swered by previous reply: No evidence of any such implication. 

10. Confusion, to a certain extent, has existed in determining the 
value of Canada live-stock. The standard as defined by law is suffi¬ 
cient. 

11 . No safe way of making estimate of any undervaluation. It only 
exists, possibly, in live-stock in this district, Weights, quality, and 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 539 


other circumstances entering so largely into the proposition, no average 
can be arrived at. 

12. I find no intentional fraud by any specified officer. The ap¬ 
praiser at this port examines goods and arrives at as close an estimate 
of value and as correct classification as his brief experience will permit. 

13. No evidence of collusion as between consular agents and customs 
officials. Consuls are very careless in issuing certificates. 

14. Undervaluation possibly has obtained in live-stock. Difficulty 
in following the law has been the cause. No evidence of payment of 
money. This clause of question is not applicable.. 

15. Answered by reply to No. 14. 

16. Specific duties are more easily computed and more readily under¬ 
stood. I believe that the more nearly duties are specific, the safer and 
surer is the collection of the revenue. It would be very difficult to 
formulate a specific duty on textile fabrics, without taking into consid¬ 
eration the question of value. 

17. No data from which to form an opinion exists in this district. 

18. Judging from the volume of immediate-transportation business 
coming to this port, I would conclude not, except by the employment 
of large force of officers. (2) Cannot designate them; probably not, 
excepting in cases made very prominent. One dollar and fifty cents 
for certificates on importations, where the value is less than $100; $2.50 
where value of importation is over $100. 

19. I think not. The appraiser, whose duty it is to examine impor¬ 
tations, is the proper and competent officer to fix value. 

20. We receive only wool of second class. No complications have 
occurred in collecting revenue. 

21. No- data for determining. 

22. The incentive to smuggle in this district is very small; almost no 
object in it. 

23. What the influences are in New York which cause people to 
evade the revenue exist in all districts— i. e., pecuniary benefit. In dis¬ 
tricts where the business is light, the opportunity to detect is greater 
as more attention can be given to detail. 

24. No evidence of fraud existing in this district, there would be no 
reason to expect criminal or civil prosecution. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. D. BISSELL, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


540 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY- 


PORT OF BURLINGTON, VT. 


No. 72. 


B. B. SMALLEY—Appointed Collector September 3, 1885. 

Custom-House, Burlington, Vt., 

Collector's Office , October 5, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to yonr circular of tlie 4th of September, I beg re¬ 
spectfully to say that I will answer the several questions therein as 
fully as I can; but as I have been in office only a little over one month, 
I cannot go as fully into details as I would be glad to. 

1. In answer to Interrogatory No. 1: Inmy opinion, the mere fact 
that large lines of foreign goods can be and are bought of the New York 
agents of the manufacturers at considerably lower prices than they can 
be imported by the merchants of this country, is to me very strong 
proof that the duties are not collected as the law prescribes. This ap¬ 
plies more especially to silks, dress-goods, ribbons, gloves, and what are 
generally termed articles of luxury, upon which an ad valorem or mixed 
duty is assessed. 

2. In answer to Interrogatory 2: Judging from the reports of the 
special agents of the Treasury Department on the subject, there is 
abundant proof that the full duties have not been collected in all cases 
where the rates are purely specific. This is especially true in regard 
to the importation of Italian marble into the ports of Boston and New 
York. My attention has been more particularly called to the impor¬ 
tation of marble, as the State of Vermont is so largely interested in it, 
and its producers suffer so severely by the frauds perpetrated on the 
revenue. As I understand it, the fraud is largely due to false classi¬ 
fications. 

3. In answer to Interrogatory 3: In this district the importation of 
textile fabrics is exceedingly small, and, unless there is something to 
particularly excite suspicion, the manufacturers’ measurements are 
accepted. 

4. In answer to Interrogatory 4: I have very little personal informa¬ 
tion on this subject. It is current talk among importers that “dummy 
packages,” so called, are often sent to the appraisers which contain 
goods of a very different kind and value from the main portion of the 
invoice, and that this has been done in collusion with the revenue 
officials. 

5. In answer to Interrogatory No. 5: So far as the district of Vermont 
is concerned, I think there is no such evidence. 

6. In answer to Interrogatory No. 6:1 think the present law govern¬ 
ing customs cases is sufficient. As a matter of practice, I think the 
courts should give priority to the trial of Government cases of all 
kinds on the motion of the district attorney, or perhaps it would be 
better to obtain the same result by a change in the law which would 
govern all United States courts, thus making the practice uniform in 
all sections, instead of having it depend on "the rules of each court. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 541 

With a change in the law giving Government cases precedence, and 
with proper attention on the part of the law-officers of the Government, 
I think speedy trials can be had in all revenue cases. 

I think that interest should be paid in all cases where the Govern¬ 
ment has collected money illegally. I see no need of any new tribunal, 
to try the class of cases referred to, and think there is none. 

7. In answer to Interrogatory No. 7 : I have no personal information 
on the subject, except as to marble, and on that I think the frauds have 
been gross at New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. The evidence as 
to such frauds is, I think, plus. 

8. In answer to Interrogatory No. 8: I think it comes about through 
the dishonesty of the importer in making, and the gross carelessness of 
the revenue officers in allowing, the false classification of goods. 

In answer to Interrogatories 9, 10,11, and 12: There being no official 
appraisers in my district, and presuming that you would get full infor¬ 
mation on the subject from districts where there are such officers, I 
will not attempt to express any opinion on the subject, matter of the 
interrogatories. 

13. In answer to Interrogatory No. 13 : I know of no cases of actual 
fraud on the part of consular officers. I think that counsular certifi¬ 
cates are often issued by consular officers in the Dominion of Canada, 
where the certifying officer knows nothing at all as to the value of the 
property referred to in the certificate. This applies more especially to 
horses, cattle, and sheep. 

14. I have not sufficient information in regard to the subject-matter 
of Interrogatory No. 14 to attempt to answer it. 

15. In answer to Interrogatory 15: If frauds have been committed 
by the revenue officers, I know of but one way to prevent like frauds 
being committed in the future, and that is to have such changes made 
as will weed out the dishonest and incompetent officials, and put in 
their places honest and competent men. 

16. In answer to Interrogatory No. 16: Theoretically, I think the 
ad valorem system correct; practically, I think specific rates the best, 
as I think specific duties would simplify the work of collecting the rev¬ 
enue, and would greatly lessen the tendency to bribery and fraud. I 
think specific rates can be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. In answer to Interragatory No. 17 : In my opinion, frauds on the 
revenue have been largely increased by the repeal of the ‘ i moiety ’ 7 law. 
I think it would be for the interests of the Government to have it re¬ 
enacted, with proper guards to prevent abuses under it. 

18. In answer to Interrogatory No. 18 : I do not think it practicable 
to have American consular agents examine every article shipped to the 
United States, nor do I think any foreign government would consent 
to its being done on their territory. 

20. I have no data from which to make the report called for in Inter¬ 
rogatory No. 20. 

21. In answer to Interrogatory No. 21: I think it is generally believed 
that the practice prevails at all the larger Atlantic ports of giving 
money to inspectors to pass baggage with very slight or no inspection 
at all. This practice can only be prevented by the substitution of honest 
for dishonest officials. The recent circular of the Secretary of the 
Treasury on this subject, and the action thereunder, has had a very 
great influence in stopping the practice referred to. 


542 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


22. In answer to Interrogatory No. 22: It is doubtless true that the 
higher the rate of duty the greater is the temptation to defraud the 
revenue. 

23. In answer to Interrogatory No. 23: Yes, in my opinion. 

24. I am unable to answer Interrogatory No. 24. 

Very respectfully, 

B. B. SMALLEY, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). G. 


PORT OF CHARLESTON, S. C. 


No. 73. 


THEODORE D. JERVEY—Appointed Collector July 25, 1885. 


Custom-House, Charleston, S. C., 

Collector’s Office, September 16, 1885. 


Sir : In reply to your confidential circular of August 27, addressed 
to collectors of customs, permit me to say that my assumption of the 
duties of this office is so recent that I have not acquired the practical 
knowledge requisite to make any suggestion of value on the points de¬ 
sired. 


Very respectfully, 

THEO. D. JERVEY, 

Collector . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , _D. C. 


PORT OF CHICAGO. 


No. 74. 

JOHN HITT—Appointed Special Deputy Collector January 7, 1878. 

Custom-House, Chicago, III., 
Collector’s Office , October 26, 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of your circular dated 
August 27, 1885, containing twenty-four questions. 

You request me to prepare at an early date a careful and official 
reply, with adequate completeness of details of facts and figures. I 
have been delayed by the press of work incident to a change of collec¬ 
tors of customs at this port. Before proceeding to reply in detail, I 
would observe that my position as a deputy coUector at an inland port 






REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 543 


has not been favorable for the acquirement of the knowledge necessary 
for the satisfactory answer of questions so broad in their scope. My 
experience is necessarily limited to the operations of this custom-house. 

Question No. 1.—The only evidence that the rates of duty levied and 
collected at this port for several years past have not been correct is 
the fact that a number of suits have been brought in the United States 
district and circuit courts of the northern district of Illinois against 
the collector for the over-collection of duties. Seventeen of these cases 
were lately heard by the court, and in thirteen cases the decision was 
against the Government, that the rate of duty exacted was erroneous 
and too high. When it is considered that about 7,000 warehouse and 
consumption entries are liquidated here yearly, the rates of duty levied 
and collected appear to be generally correct. 

Question 2.—I believe that the full amount of duties prescribed by 
Congress upon articles paying a specific rate of duty has been collected 
at this port. My reason for making this assertion is that the appraiser 
rarely finds a claim for damage allowance to be well founded, and only 
allows a trifling damage in any case. The work of weighing and gaug¬ 
ing is carefully done. Complaints have been made by Messrs. P. D. 
Armor & Co., packers, that bulk-salt received from Canada by vessel 
was weighed in favor of the Government. I have not known a case for 
several years where short weights occurred or deficient gauge. 

I desire to recommend the adoption of specific duties instead of ad 
valorem duties wherever practicable. There is less opportunity to de¬ 
fraud the Treasury under the system of specific duties. Competent, 
honest officers can collect specific duties in every case in full by simply 
doing their duty, but in the case of the ad valorem system it is impos¬ 
sible to prevent fraud in many cases, no matter how earnestly the effort 
is made by experienced officers to collect duties correctly. 

Question 3.—The verification of the invoice measurement of textile 
fabrics is attended to by the appraiser. He tests the widths of the piece- 
goods found in the packages sent to him for examination. At this 
port, one package in ten is sent to the appraiser, and as many more as 
may be necessary. Textile fabrics are always in packages, and the 
actual width as found by the appraiser is noted upon the invoice when¬ 
ever a discrepancy occurs. Such discrepancy rarely occurs. 

Question 4.—There is no evidence of any collusion here between the 
chief entry clerk and the person making entry, whereby a false package 
was sent to the appraiser for examination. I never knew such a case. 

Question 5.—There is no evidence of false or dishonest weighing or 
measuring at this port, at the wharves or at the depots. An occasional 
error has been discovered now and then, but nothing that would war¬ 
rant calling any of the weighers incompetent. 

Question 6.—The existing law relative to differences between import¬ 
ers and collectors growing out of decisions made by the latter and 
affirmed by the Treasury Department is good enough for practical pur¬ 
poses. The courts do not sit often enough here, so that cases are 
sometimes pending two or three years. There are about fifty suits 
pending now in Chicago. I do not know anything about suits against 
collectors of customs at the eastern ports. At this port a number of 
the suits grow out of the change in the law made March 3, 1883, 
whereby the dutiable value no longer includes the value of the usual 
and necessary coverings of goods. In my experience, the slowest prog- 


544 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ress in tlie courts has been made with proceedings for forfeiture in 
cases of seizure. I do not doubt that the principal law officer could de¬ 
vise a plan whereby a more speedy disposition of these suits could be 
obtained. An appropriation by Congress of sufficient sums of money 
whereby a jury could be obtained three or four times each year would 
be the best plan. I think that it is just to pay interest from date of the 
payment of the disputed amount, and the law permitting such payment 
is not in need of amendment. 

The customs court recommended by the late Tariff Commission should 
be created by the next Congress. It would be a step in the right direc¬ 
tion. 

Questions 7, 8, and 9.—I cannot answer these questions intelligently. 

Question 10.—At this port there is very little doubt in the appraiser’s 
department in the return of dutiable value. I judge that this is the 
fact by the official returns of the appraiser. It is rarely the case that 
his opinion is not also the opinion of the collector’s office. 

Questions 11 and 12.—These questions apply to the great ports, and I 
am only acquainted with this port. The salary of the appraiser of this 
port is $3,000 per annum. One man in this city, Philip D. Armor, 
pork-packer, tells me that his pay-roll shows forty-three names of em¬ 
ployes who are paid $3,000 per annum, and still higher. The Treasury 
ought to pay the appraiser of this port $5,000 per annum. He is, next 
to the collector, the most important officer of customs here, and upon 
his judgment and fidelity depend the proper collection of duties. The 
appraiser here is not a figure-head but gives his personal attention to 
the returns signed by him. He draws his opinions himself, and they 
are almost always in his own handwriting. 

Question 13.—No specific case has come to my knowledge where an 
invoice evidently too low had been certified as correct by the consul 
in wilful violation of the truth. 

Questions 14 and 15.—As the tariff law has been faithfully executed 
in this small port, (and I only know by hearsay that the full duties are 
not collected at the great ports,) I am not able to say that either the 
customs officers or Treasury officials have been notoriously corrupt and 
lax in the discharge of their duties. It is certainly the fact that the 
importing influence in the West is not strong enough yet to interfere 
here with the proper collection of duties by means of bribes and the 
daily solicitations of their brokers. How the case may be in the East I 
know not, but I believe the full duties are not collected. I am clear 
that the prospect ahead for less venal and corrupt influence being used 
in the custom-houses of the country than has been the case for twenty 
years past is encouraging. At any port where a collector and ap¬ 
praiser act in harmony the problem is not difficult to practically sup¬ 
press undervaluation in its grosser forms, and to keep ordinary fraud 
within narrow bounds. If there is even indifference on the part of 
either of these officers, the duties will not be collected correctly. When 
the Treasury itself is active in support of every measure and policy to 
secure the full duties, as is the case now, the time is not far distant in 
the future when we may fairly hope for a successful execution of the 
tariff law. 

Question 16.—I have already expressed the opinion that a change 
from the ad valorem system to specific rates will be a benefit to the 
revenue, and will help to diminish the tendency to bribery. The west- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 545 


* 


ern man could import with such a change of system, and feel that he 
had a fair chance with the agents of European manufacturers located in 
eastern ports. It will not apply conveniently to textile fabrics in all 
cases, but generally it will be found to be an improvement. 

Question 17.—The repeal of the moiety act, June 22, 1874, was a 
blunder of the first magnitude, so far as the revenue was concerned. 
The fact remains that public opinion did not sustain the methods adopted 
by Special Agent Jayne and other agents of the Treasury. The reaction 
resulted in the repeal of the moiety act. Since that repeal undervalua¬ 
tion has increased greatly at the great ports, if we may believe the testi¬ 
mony of the merchants here, who cannot import silks and many kinds 
of goods by reason of the system of agents of European manufacturers 
stationed in New York. 

So long as the Government must prove, not only fraudulent acts, but 
that the party meant to defraud when doing such acts, to the satisfac¬ 
tion of a jury, the convictions will probably be infrequent. The con¬ 
science of the country is not sensitive in regard to frauds upon the cus¬ 
toms revenue. Few people class an intentional failure to pay lawful 
duties as a criminal offence, especially if the matter has not been found 
out at the custom-house. The very name of the informer is odious. It 
is probable that the law as it stands is quite as severe as the public 
sentiment will sustain. The loss to the revenue by this laxness of 
opinion is, in my judgment, many millions each year. 

Question 15.—I doubt the possibility of consuls abroad acting success¬ 
fully as appraising officers. In the great centres, as Manchester, Berlin, 
Paris, &c., it would be easiest to quote the market values and see that 
the invoices agree with such values. 

Foreign governments would probably complain if the consuls delayed 
making certificates to invoices until they were sure the values were cor¬ 
rect. The consuls can in any event send valuable information home. 
The fee allowed by law is $2.50 for each invoice. 

Question 19.—The court could be safely vested with the power of re¬ 
vision of the decisions of the appraiser in all cases. 

Question 20.—Wool is not imported at this port. 

Question 21.—The practice is generally believed here to prevail at 
Atlantic ports of fees being paid, or rather bribes, to inspectors by 
passengers. So many people state that they paid money to the in¬ 
spectors upon their arrival by steamship, and found it to their interest 
to fee the inspector examining their baggage, that I accept the correct¬ 
ness of their testimony. I doubt whether this practice can be pre¬ 
vented entirely, but it can be greatly lessened by the personal atten¬ 
tion of the surveyor. No officer of less rank can make much headway 
breaking up the custom. 

Question 22.—There is little doubt that the high rate of duties pre¬ 
scribed by the tariff for several years past has made smuggling and 
undervaluation more profitable and tempting than a more moderate 
tariff would have done. The repeal of the moiety act in 1874 should 
have followed, logically, a considerable reduction of the tariff. It pays 
well to evade the provisions of the present tariff law, and is not very 
dangerous. The jury may find that the accused did not have the intent 
to defraud the revenue. 

Question 23.—I do not know enough about the Atlantic ports to 
answer this question. 

35 A 


546 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Question 24.—The reasons why persons making false returns of values 
to the collectors have not been indicted and punished have been already 
partially indicated. 

The overpowering influence of the importing interest concentrated at 
the port of New York, where two-thirds of the duties are collected, has 
been thus far an overmatch for the Treasury Department. 

The customs service is not organized to win in such a struggle. It 
has no chief officer who is vested by law with the general superintend¬ 
ence of the assessment and collection of all duties imposed by the cus¬ 
toms laws, such as the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue. 

The Commissioner of Customs is not such an officer, but is charged 
with examination of customs accounts. 

A radical change must be made in customs organization, so that its 
chief officer shall be charged by express statute with the superintend¬ 
ence of the collection of the customs revenue. Legislation will be 
required to create such an office. At present the chief officer of inter¬ 
nal revenue outranks the Commissioner of Customs in salary, in the im¬ 
portance of his duties, and in public estimation. The Secretary of the 
Treasury knows where to locate the fault, if there is failure to collect 
internal taxes. He ought to have an equally good organization for the 
customs service. 

In conclusion, I would express my belief that customs administration 
is improving daily, and that the Department may confidently look for¬ 
ward to greater efficiency. 

I am, very respectfully, 

JNO. HITT, 

Special Deputy Collector . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 75. 

WM. J. JEWELL—Appointed Deputy Collector January 7, 1878. 

Custom-House, Chicago, III., 

September 16, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of 
the 9th instant, and respectfully reply thereto as follows: 

1. It is difficult to determine in some cases what rate of duty should 
be levied, when the tariff would seem to be capable of authorizing two 
or more interpretations; and as it is the rule of the customs officers to 
assess the highest rates in doubtful cases, their decisions mav sometimes 
seem arbitrary. 

2. Specific rates, not dependent on values, are clear and easy but 

there should be no allowance for damage. ’ 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 547 


3. One package out of every invoice, and one out of every ten pack¬ 
ages of exactly the same character and description in an invoice, is 
designated by a deputy collector for the appraiser’s examination and 
report as to quantity and value. 

4. It would require a very bad importer and a very bad deputy to 
form such an alliance, and it could not possibly go on for any length 
of time without discovery. 

5. There is no evidence of this character, and any material difference 
between a weigher’s return and invoice and bill of lading would cer¬ 
tainly have been discovered by one of the two or three examining 
clerks, whose duty it is to check the same in the usual routine of the 
custom-house business. 

6. Could all differences go to a single court and be finally settled 
there, the questions at issue could be identified and disposed of with 
quick dispatch. It is very questionable whether interest should be 
charged or allowed on suits growing out of uncertain interpretations 
of law. 

7 to 24. In answer to these questions, I would be obliged to speak on 
hearsay, and I feel that I have not the competent knowledge to enable 
me to give such information as would be of use. I may say that im¬ 
ports of wool (unmanufactured) at this port have been comparatively 
nothing. 

Very respectfully, 

W. J. JEWELL, 

Deputy Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C, 


No. 76. 

F, C. GREENE—Appointed Deputy Collector January 7, 1878. 

Custom-House, Chicago, III., 

Collector's Office , September 19, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully acknowledging the receipt of your printed letter 
of the 9th instant, in which I am requested to make careful reply to 
certain inquiries made therein concerning the tariff and the enforce¬ 
ment of the tariff laws, numbered 1 to 24, I beg leave to say, in reply, 
that since my connection with the customs service some eighteen years, 
I have served but a short time in the entry and warehousing division; 
therefore, any opinion I might express on most of points involved in 
the questions submitted would necessarily be of little value. 

However, I will dispose of the questions in their order, so far as they 
are applicable to the business of Chicago, (having no knowledge other 
than hearsay of the customs affairs of any other port, to the best) of my 
ability, as follows: 

1. The only evidence known to me that duties have not been levied 
and collected according to law is the fact that there are usually a num¬ 
ber of suits pending in the United States courts against the collector 
for duties alleged to have been paid in error. 

2. I don’t know. 

3. The appraiser examines certain packages designated by the col¬ 
lector, and makes a return thereof to the latter. 



548 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

4 and 5. I don’t know. 

6. It would seem that the officers named might arrange for a prompt 
trial of such suits. I am of opinion that, in justice to the importer, in 
most cases interest should not be charged or allowed in “ collectors’ 
suits.” 

A “customs court” for the final adjudication of customs cases is 
advocated by many well-informed persons, as it would insure earlier 
.decisions, and consequently more uniformity in practice, and would, 
of course, very much relieve the United States courts. 

As regards questions numbered 7 to 24, I will say that I have no 
reliable data or information upon which I could frame an answer of 
any interest or importance. 

I am, very respectfully, 

F. O. GREENE, 

Deputy Collector of Customs . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C, 


No. 77. 

JAMES H. GILBERT—Appointed Deputy Collector April 24, 1883. 

Custom-House, Chicago, III., 
Collectors Office , September 12,1885. 

Sir : Your confidential circular of the 9th instant was duly received. 
In reply, I beg leave to state that I cannot answer any of the ques¬ 
tions except No. 5. The remainder, with the exception of No. 21, 
refer especially to the entry and warehouse and appraiser’s depart¬ 
ments, of the working of which I have not direct knowledge. As regards 
Question 5,1 beg leave to state that I do not think there is the slightest 
evidence of any false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measur¬ 
ing, either at the docks or depots in this port. Our three weighers are 
competent, men of large experience, and I sincerely believe honest. 

Question 21, referring to the proper examination of baggage at the 
Atlantic ports, I cannot answer specifically, or except from hearsay. 

My department is simply for receiving, unloading, and delivering 
bonded freight, and also weighing, gauging, and cigar inspection, cor¬ 
responding in other ports to the surveyor’s department. 

Outside of questions referring to my department, my answers would 
not be authoritative, but merely surmise. 

Yery respectfully, 

JAMES H. GILBERT, 

Deputy Collector . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D C 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 549 


•No. 78. 

JOHN A. FITCH—Appointed Deputy Collector, Vermont, October 26, 1866 ; Inspector, 
Chicago, May 10, 1867; Deputy Collector, Chicago, October 1, 1875, and February 
18, 1882. 

Custom-House, Chicago, III., 

Barge Office , September 24, 1885. 

Sir: Your letter of the 7th instant, marked “strictly confidential,” 
came safely to hand, and has been carefully read. In answer, I beg 
leave to say that I am employed in the barge office at this port, in con¬ 
nection with the marine interests on the lakes, and am unable from 
personal information to answer the inquiries you make or offer sugges¬ 
tions that will be of value to the Department in connection therewith. 
I am, respectfully, yours, 

J. A. FITCH, 

Deputy Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 79. 

CHARLES H. HAM—Appointed Appraiser February 26, 1877. 

Port of Chicago, III., 
Appraiser's Office , September —, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your circular of the 27th ultimo, marked 
“strictly confidential,” in which you “desire that careful and official 
replies” be made to certain inquiries thereto appended, “with ade¬ 
quate completeness of details of facts and figures,’ ’ &e. 

Permit me to premise by saying that the evidence I shall offer in 
support of my opinion is chiefly, if not entirely, circumstantial 5 but I 
do not, therefore, think it less worthy of consideration. In the outset, 
I must frankly admit that I believe the frauds on^the customs revenue 
are chiefly confined to the port of New York. The main reason for 
this fact may be the circumstance that a very large proportion of the 
customs business of the country is transacted at that port. I believe it 
to be a fact that the magnitude of the business of the New York custom¬ 
house has had a tendency to render its management, in a measure, inde¬ 
pendent of the control of the Treasury Department. But this will 
appear more fully as I proceed. 

The first question of the circular is as follows: 

1. ‘ ; Keeping in mind the distinction bet ween rates of duty and dutiable 
value, what evidence is there, if any, that the former have not within 
the last few years been levied and collected as the law prescribed?” 

The evidence that 11 rates of duty have not been levied and collected 
as the law prescribed” is this: That certain classes of foreign merchan¬ 
dise, notably French silks, are sold in this country by the manufact¬ 
urers’ agents at a less price than they can be imported for by the 
American merchant. 

Marshall Field & Co., of Chicago, are among the heaviest importers 
in the United States. They are large dealers in silks and silk goods, 
but they do not import silks. John Y. Farwell & Co., Carson Pirie, 



550 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Scott & Co., and Jas. H. Walker & Co. are large importers of mis¬ 
cellaneous dry-goods, and dealers in silks and silk goods, but they do 
not import silks. 

The reason why they do not import silks is the fact that they can 
buy them cheaper in New York of the agents of the foreign manufact¬ 
urers. This question will receive further elucidation farther on. 

2. “Is there satisfactory evidence (and, if so, what is it) that on 
articles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates, without ref¬ 
erence to values, the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has 
not been collected?” 

There is evidence satisfactory to me—that is to say, (provided old 
abuses have not been entirely reformed,) evidence of frauds in the 
weighing department. 

In 1878 a commission, consisting of the late Mr. Meredith, general 
appraiser, and Special Agents Bingham-and Hinds, was created by the 
Secretary of the Treasury to investigate the New York custom-house. 
While the commission was engaged in the investigation of the appraiser’s 
office, I was ordered to New York to consult with the members thereof. 

While there, Mr. - - made the following statement. 

I copy from my memorandum made at the time: 

“ July 13, 1878.--says, some months ago special agents investi¬ 

gated the weigher’s department, New York custom-house; found all 

the heads of divisions (7) corrupt. -reported the fact to the 

Secretary of the Treasury, whereupon, with the Secretary and Assist¬ 
ant Secretary Hawley, he called upon the President, and it was recom¬ 
mended that all seven be dismissed and seven new weighers be appointed. 
The President directed the order to be made, but before it was ex¬ 
ecuted, one -, a Congressman from New York State, called upon 

the President and urged him to countermand the order. He (-) 

insisted that its enforcement would cost him his position as Representa¬ 
tive in Congress. Finally, the President consented, countermanded 
the order, and directed that the collector be directed to act upon the 

special agents’ report, whereupon - removed four of the best 

men, retaining the three worst. ’ ’ 

I believe that specific rates of duty should be substituted for ad va¬ 
lorem rates, and that the opportunities for fraud would be thereby 
greatly diminished. But the due execution of any law requires honest 
and efficient public servants. 

3. “In what manner, and by what tests, are the invoiced measure 
ments of textile fabrics verified in the usual course of custom-house 
business?” 

Usually the manufacturers’ marks are accepted, but not always. If 
suspicion is aroused, measurements are made. At this port scarcely 
any consigned goods are received. In August last I had two consign¬ 
ments from Japan. In both cases the goods (silks) were undervalued. 
I advanced the first case, and on appeal the merchants sustained me 
and U per cent. more. On the second case I advanced the invoice, 
and the merchants disagreed, the collector taking the highest return, 
which, however, was considerably less than my advance. 

4. “What evidence is there, if any, of collusion of persons making 
entry of several packages of similar goods on one invoice and the 
entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the appraiser for examination 
a bogus or false package as a fair example of one in every ten? ” 











REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 551 


This was formerly a favorite method of committing fraud. It went 
by the name of the 11 dummy-package fraud. ’ 7 A fraud of this descrip¬ 
tion constituted the basis of the charge of the Bingham, Hinds, and 
Meredith commission against John It. Lydecker, special deputy collector 
down to 1878. The report of that commission to Secretary Sherman 
should be in the files of the Treasury Department. Qn the strength of 
it, Secretary Sherman demanded of Collector Arthur the removal of his 
chief deputy, Lydecker, and upon Collector Arthur’s refusal to remove 
Lydecker, Arthur was removed. The case, as I recollect it, was this: 
The invoices called for cheap clocks; the cases sent to the appraiser 
(designated by Lydecker) contained cheap clocks, dutiable at 35 per 
cent, ad valorem; but the cases not sent to the appraiser contained 
fine silks, dutiable at 60 per cent, ad valorem. For further particu¬ 
lars of this case, I refer to the report of the Bingham, Hinds, and 
Meredith commission before alluded to. 

I am informed by one of the most reputable importing-liouses in 
Chicago, Messrs. Wilson Bros., that the goods of a certain English 
manufacturer of hosiery have lately been detained at the New York 
custom-house, and the Messrs. Wilson think they have grounds for be¬ 
lieving that the “dummy-package fraud” is involved in the case. 
The way for the appraiser to detect this form of fraud is to call for 
particular packages not designated for his store by the collector. 

5. 44 What evidence is there, if any, of false or incompetent or in¬ 
adequate weighing or measuring on the wharves'?” 

I perhaps sufficiently covered the grounds of this question in my 
answer to the second interrogatory. But I desire to call attention to 
the disclosure of fraud in the weighing department of the New York 
custom-house made by Special Agent B. G. Jayne in 1872-’73. Mr. 
Jayne was a special Treasury agent from the 3d of June, 1869, to 
February 17, 1874. 

Under the moieties act he made about eighty seizures for various kinds 
of fraud, and recovered something like three million dollars. Mr. 
Jayne allowed me to examine his books, and I found there evidences 
of every species of fraud possible in connection with customs business, 
from bribery for $5 to thousands of dollars. 

False weighings seemed to be a large source of fraud. I copy from 
my private memorandum, made at the time, a single case: 

u Sample case , information of pepper by Townsend, Clench & Dike.” 

Dock-book weight. 727, 868 pounds. 

Beturn.... 669, 201 pounds. 

Cheat. 58,667 pounds. 

“ At 15 cents per pound, duty lost amounted to $8,800.05. 

“In the same case there was a fraudulent allowance for damage on 
69,974 pounds, at 15 cents per pound, $10,496.10. 

• 4 And the books of the importer showed sales of 729,984 pounds more 
than the weight of the entire importation, as shown by the dock-book 
weight. The weigher was bribed. The importers were entirely re¬ 
spectable, and paid in settlement, $33,748.” 

I shall have occasion again to refer to Mr. Jayne in connection with 
the repeal of the “moiety law.” 






552 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


6. “In respect to rates of duty and differences between importers and 
collectors growing out of decisions of the latter and the Treasury which 
have resulted in suits, does the existing law need amendment? How 
many such collectors’ suits are now pending in Boston, New York, 
Philadelphia, and Baltimore? If they can be classified and legal ques¬ 
tions at issue identified, how many suits are there in each classification, 
and how long has each untried suit been at issue and ready for trial ? 
Cannot a plan be devised by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor of the 
Treasury, the district attorneys, and the judges by which these suits 
can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits, as they come up, be 
speedily put at issue and tried? Does the existing law in respect to the 
payment of interest as a part of the damages and costs in 1 collectors’ 
suits’ need amendment? Is there a necessity for a new tribunal to try 
judicially questions growing out of rates of external or internal taxation 
levied by the executive when tax payers are dissatisfied, or can the 
existing judicial system be made sufficient if it be worked efficiently?” 

I do not think that the law in regard to or governing customs cases 
needs amendment. 

I trust I shall be excused from answering the portion of this question 
referring to the number, &c., of pending suits at the great Atlantic 
ports, since I may assume that these facts are more easily obtained by 
the officers at those ports. I believe a plan can be devised by the 
Attorney-General, &c., as outlined in this question, “by which these 
suits can be more promptly disposed of,” &c. 

I do not think there is need of a new tribunal to try customs cases, 
nor do I think that the law in relation to payment of interest as a part 
of the damages and costs in collection suits needs amendment. It seems 
to me, if suitors are entitled to recover, they are entitled to interest. 
But my general reason for replying as above to the different numbers 
of this question is this: I believe that, through a change of practice 
already in part inaugurated, the number of appeals, and hence of suits, 
can be greatly diminished. I allude to the late order in regard to the 
daily return of samples. If the scope of this order can be enlarged so 
as to comprehend the establishment of a sample bureau at Washington — 
and I emphasize the place of its establishment because I believe it should 
sit away from New York—which bureau, consisting of experts, shall 
be required to act upon all samples daily, and report its action at once 
to all collectors and appraisers—if this can be done, I believe appeals 
and suits would be far less numerous. 

For a full exposition of my views on this subject, I beg respectfully 
to refer to my letter to the Department under date of June 20 last. 

My suggestion, that in the event of the creation of a sample bureau, its 
session should be held away from New York, is based on the fact of the 
hostility of the merchants of New York City to interior ports of entry. 
In support of this proposition, I quote from the fifth report of the Jay 
Commission, as follows: 

“The twenty-third point presented was in regard to the equalization 
of appraisement at different ports. The committee of the chamber 
(of commerce) remarked that the inequality of appraisement, growing 
out of so many collection districts, there being over one hundred where 
duties are collected, especially under our complex and intricate tariff, 
is a most serious injury to trade. * * * They suggest that correct 
duties are most probably assessed where the importations are largest, 
and where there is the best organized corps of appraisers; and they 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


553 


say 1 that wliat the merchants unanimously demand, and what they 
recommend, is a plan to correct the evils and to equalize appraisements 
at the different ports—a plan that shall be at once simple, thorough, and 
rapid, speed in rectifying evils of this kind being especially impor¬ 
tant.’ ” 

The committee add: 

11 In these views we entirely concur, and we think a system can be 
readily arranged by which the classification and rates established at 
the New York custom-house shall be known and recognized at every 
port in the country, and by which the question as to what is the rate 
in any particular case may be determined with the least possible delay, 
assuming the appraisers to be experts.” 

It was often remarked in a satirical way during the administration 

of-and-, that instead of the New York custom-house being 

“run” by the Treasury Department, the Treasury Department was 
“run” by the New York custom-house. But here is a serious propo¬ 
sition by a commission constituted by the Treasury Department, that 
one custom-house, the custom-house of New York City, should control 
and regulate all the other custom-houses of the country—a proposition 
that the Treasury Department should abdicate its functions in favor of 
one of its creatures. 

7. “Specify the class of articles, if any there be, on which the recent 
investigations or the existing facts now susceptible of proof conclusively 
show that the Treasury Department has, during recent years, failed to 
levy and collect in New York the entire and full amount of duty that 
the law prescribed. Is the evidence of failure of a character to be con¬ 
troverted successfully? And, if so, how and why?” 

With the results of “recent investigations” lam not familiar. I 
believe, however, judging from a general knowledge of the subject, that 
there is a failure to collect the full amount of duty prescribed by law 
at the port of New York on staple silks, and perhaps many other 
classes of high-duty-bearing goods. I am confident of the fact, par 
ticularly in regards to silks, because large importers of other fabrics in 
Chicago do not import silks, although they handle large quantities of 
silk goods. ♦ 

Twelve years ago, or thereabouts, Messrs. Keith Brothers, of this 
city, then the largest establishment of the kind in the United States, 
imported silk ribbons very extensively. Suddenly they stopped im¬ 
porting altogether. They told me at the time that they lost heavily 
on all their importations; that they could buy in New York at figures 
from 20 to 30 per cent, less than it cost them to import. They have 
never resumed the importation of ribbons. 

Messrs. Marshall Field & Co. import from time to time a case or 
two of staple silks, simply to secure circumstantial evidence on the sub¬ 
ject of undervaluation of silks at the port of New York, and they in¬ 
form me that they invariably lose money on such importations. I need 
not observe that Chicago merchants of the rank of Field & Co., Farwell 
& Co., Keith & Co., Carson Pirie, Scott & Co., and many others I might 
name, can buy goods in France as cheap as any merchants in the world. 
They are driven out of the silk markets of the world by the undervalua¬ 
tion of consigned silks. 

8. “How has a failure come about? Has it come of the ignorance, 
or of the insolence, or of the dishonesty of Treasury officials ? Is there 
any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge of the failure, or a 




554 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


conspiracy to promote it, among the higher class of Treasury or custom¬ 
house officials ?” 

I am not prepared to say and prove that the failure has come about 
through the ignorance, indolence, or dishonesty of Treasury officials. 
I know of no evidence of a conspiracy between Treasury officials and 

custom-house officials to defeat the law. I think the removal of- 

and-was for the good of the service. 

9. “If there be conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the appraiser 
(not the general appraiser) has reported to the collector false dutiable 
values, then (1) how long has the falsehood been in operation, (2) on 
what class of articles, (3) from what places, (4) and were the articles 
shipped by the makers or purchasers, and (5) has the same general 
condition of things existed in the larger ports? If the proof of the 
false returns of the dutiable values made by the local appraisers de¬ 
pends on the statements made by special agents of the Treasury De¬ 
partment or consular agents, what evidence is there to corroborate the 
latter as against the official action of the appraising department? 

I think there is “satisfactory,’ 7 but perhaps not “conclusive,” evi¬ 
dence of the return by appraisers of false dutiable values. The evidence 
I characterize as satisfactory is such as I allude to in my reply to Ques¬ 
tion 7; but that is not such evidence as would be required by a court 
called upon to convict of the crime of defrauding the revenue. (1) 
The disclosures made by the special agent of the Treasury, B. G. Jayne, 
referred to in my reply to Question 3, show that enormous frauds were 
committed in 1871, 1872, and 1873. The details of those disclosures 
show that fraudulent practices had at that time not only reached huge 
proportions, but became both systematic and bold. The names of 
bribed officials, with the amount paid them, were found on the books 
of the guilty importers. In some cases the importers gave them notes, 
in sums as high as $2,000, in payment for the services of corrupt officials. 

I cite these circumstances to justify my conclusion that fraudulent prac¬ 
tices so systematic and bold must have been of slow growth. In other 
words, I think the practice of fraud in the New York custom-house is 
of# at least twenty years’ duration. It probably originated during the 
war. (2) It relates to silks, ribbons, laces, kid gloves, and doubtless 
many other kinds of (3) German and French high-rate-of-duty-bearing 
merchandise, usually (4) consigned by the foreign manufacturer to his 
agent in New York. (5) I believe this “condition of things” is pecul¬ 
iar to the port of New York, and that it does not exist at the other 
large coast ports, nor at any interior port. 

I know of no evidence in corroboration of the statements of special 
agents in cases where the goods subject of alleged undervaluation have 
passed out of the control of the customs authorities, except the declara¬ 
tion of merchants that they are driven from the foreign markets by such 
undervaluations. 

10. ‘ 1 Is there now, or has there recently been, confusion or doubt or 
contlict of opinion in the appraiser’s department respecting any of the 
elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare the dutiable value; 
and, if so, what? Is not the place and time and the standard to be 
applied already defined by the statutes, in the opinion of the examiners, 
deputy appraisers, and appraiser?” 

I do not think that there has been confusion or doubt in the appraiser’s 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 555 


department in regard to the elements entering into “dutiable value.” 
I think the rulings of the Department are correct in this respect. I 
took the ground immediately upon the passage of the act of March 3, 
1883, that it was intended by the “sacks, crates, boxes, 77 &c., men¬ 
tioned in section 7 to describe shipping coverings ; and hence that car¬ 
tons, &c., necessary for the due protection and proper exposure on sale 
of merchandise in the country of production, as well as the place of 
export, should make a part of the dutiable value. But it is possible 
to make the statute plainer. It would doubtless be wise to amend it, 
since importing merchants are united in the opinion that all coverings 
are, under section 7, exempt from duty, and are united in contesting 
the right of the Government to impose duty thereon. 

11. “Can a safe average estimate be now made of the percentage of 
each undervaluation by the appraisers in any year or series of years, 
and the articles or invoices be identified? 77 Not even approximately. 

12. “As between the examiner, deputy appraiser, and appraiser, 
which is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of busi¬ 
ness, for a false return of value to the collector? What is the salary of 
such officer? Is the appraiser much else ordinarily and in fact than 
one who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed and reported 
to him by the examiner and deputy appaiser? 77 

If the appraiser attends strictly to the duties of his office, he is pri¬ 
marily responsible for the entire conduct of it and for each act of it, for 
he should exert as direct a supervision of his subordinates as the mer¬ 
chant exerts over his employes. In a well-organized and properly- 
conducted appraiser’s office, the appraiser should not be more liable 
to imposition than the head of the house in a well-organized mercantile 
establishment. 

I do not mean to imply by this that the appraiser should personally 
supervise the examination of every package of merchandise; such a 
supervision would be impracticable. But it is practicable for the ap¬ 
praiser to overlook, and closely, too, the entire operations of his force; 
and it is also practicable for him to personally examine and decide all 
nice and difficult questions of classification and value. This should be 
an inflexible rule of office procedure, enforced by precept and example ; 
and such a rule, it need scarcely be remarked, requires the constant 
presence of the appraiser during office-hours in the offices and apprais- 
ing-rooms of the appraiser’s department. 

The appraiser’s salary is $3,000 per annum; the salaries of examiners 
in my office run from $1,400 to $2,000 per annum. 

What I have said about a comparatively small office (like that at 
Chicago) may not apply to the port of New York. 

I think the organization of the New York appraiser’s office is, to say 
the least, unfortunate. It is many-headed, one chief appraiser and ten 
assistant appraisers; and the ten assistants are appointed by the Presi¬ 
dent, not on the nomination or necessarily the recommendation of their 
chief,' the appraiser. 

I do not see, under the condition of things, how the appraiser can 
enforce his wishes. Above all, I do not believe it possible for him to 
maintain the morale of the large force thus only nominally under his 
control; and this is what I discovered to be the great difficulty in the 
way of an honest assessment of the revenue in the appraiser’s office of 


556 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Yew York in 1878, in the course of the investigation already alluded to 
in this report. 

13. “Is there satisfactory evidence that any Government officials in 
the consular department or elsewhere have assisted or consented to, or 
connived at, the presentation to appraisers of such false evidence of 
foreign values? If so, what officers, when, and how?” I know of no 
such evidence beyond what I have already stated. 

14. “If under the previous administration of the Treasury false 
values have been habitually and systematically reported to the several 
collectors, and if the tariff law has not been faithfully executed, and if 
the full amount has not been collected, can it fairly be said the failure 
has come of dishonesty, and been accompanied by guilty knowledge 
on the part of Treasury or customs officials; and, if so, of whom? If 
more has been paid to American officials to get false reports of dutiable 
values, who has furnished and paid it? By what means and agency, 
and where, has such corruption fund been raised and disbursed?” I 
believe there has been bribery, but have not the means of proof at hand 
beyond the circumstantial evidence to which I have from time to time 
drawn attention in this report. 

15. “If the false valuations have come of bribery or venality, what 
reason is there to think that similar corrupt and venal influences are 
not now brought to bear, or that they will not be successful in the fu¬ 
ture as in the past?” I believe that similar corrupt and venal influ¬ 
ences are now brought to bear, and that they are in a degree successful. 
Witness the fact that honest merchants who desire to import all the 
foreign merchandise in which they deal, but are prevented from doing 
so, and are compelled to purchase certain classes of goods of the foreign 
manufacturer in “dollars and cents,” as the phrase is, meaning duty 
paid, in Yew York. 

16. “Would a change from ad valorem to specific rates be a benefit 
to the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to bribery, providing 
the existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the future; and could 
specific rates be applied to all textile fabrics?” 

I am decidedly of the opinion that a change from ad valorem to 
specific rates would greatly diminish the tendency to bribery and every 
species of customs frauds; and this I believe to be true whether the 
“ quantity ” of duty to be collected shall be great or small. 

Undervaluation has always been, and still is, I believe, a prolific 
source of fraud—the chief source of fraud. Boughly estimating, I 
should say that more than 75 per cent, of all the customs-revenue frauds 
are committed through the undervaluation method. Some frauds are 
committed through false and excessive damage allowances; formerly 
very heavy frauds were committed by that means, but of late not so 
heavy. Some frauds are committed through false weights, &c.; but 
the great source of fraud is undervaluation, and the substitution of 
specific for ad valorem rates will change all that. 

I think specific rates can be applied to all textile fabrics. It will be 
an arduous undertaking, but it can be accomplished. Specific rates 
make up almost exclusively the English and the German tariffs. The 
body of statistics, weights of ad-valorem-duty-bearing goods, now be¬ 
ing collected by the appraisers of the several great ports of the country, 
under the letter of instruction of the Department bearing date June 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


557 


29 last, will be a valuable aid in finding the equivalents of ad valorem 
rates in specific rates of duty. I think the opinion is almost universal 
that strictly specific rates should be substituted for ad valorem rates. 

The Jay Commission (1877) stated that of the merchants who had 
addressed them on the subject, “ one hundred and sixteen were in favor 
of the change to specific duties, and but five against it.” That com¬ 
mission also called attention to the fact “that the 1 British Isles,’ with 
a population of 35,000,000, derive nearly as much revenue from cus¬ 
toms on ten commodities as the United States, with a population of 
40,000,000, receive from over 2,500 articles, excluding sugar and 
molasses. ’ ’ 

This is a very suggestive fact, touching the question of economy in 
collecting the revenue. 

17. Have the false reports by the appraisers been increased by the 
repeal of 1874 of the ‘moiety law,’ and by the customs legislation of 
that date modifying the existing law, and especially modifying that of 

In replying to a letter from the Jay Commission, (1877,) Mr. C. A. 
1863 respecting seizure of books and papers?” 

Arthur, then collector of the port of Hew York, said: 

“ I herewith enclose a schedule covering the years from 1873 to 1877, 
inclusive. From the schedule it will be seen that, whereas in 1873 the 
seizures, &c., amounted to $773,310.09, in 1877 the total amount was 
only $120,131.09. I attribute this decrease to the discouraging effect of 
the legislation of 1874.” 

The civil-service commission of 1871, known as the Curtis Commis¬ 
sion, estimated that one-fourth of the revenues of the United States 
were lost in their collection. 

The Jay Commission (1877) quote this estimate, and proceed to show, 
approximately, what the losses were in 1876 on that basis, and find 
such losses at the port of Hew York alone to be $36,000,000. 

They also say: “Some facts submitted by the importers touching the 
offer of foreign manufacturers to deliver in Hew York goods at a lower 
rate than they can honestly be imported at, would not seem to indicate 
increasing strictness and success in protecting the revenue .” The circum¬ 
stances of the repeal of the moiety law show, I think, that it ought 
not to have been repealed, and go far to show that it ought to be re¬ 
enacted. (1) It was repealed on the heels of a series of enormous 
frauds, which were discovered through its aid—the seizure of books and 
papers. (2) It was repealed against the protest of those Government 
officials who had found it an efficient means of detecting and punishing 
fraud. (3) It was repealed at the demand of the persons who had been 
proven guilty of its violation. At least I am informed, and believe 
such to be the facts. And if these are facts, the repeal legislation of 
1874 was little less than infamous. “Have the frauds been more exten¬ 
sive since the repeal?” I cannot absolutely say. 

The Jay Commission, (1877,) three years afterwards, found a state of 
things in all its branches of the custom-house service in Hew York very 
favorable to fraud, to say the least. They say “the investigation 
showed that ignorance and incapacity on the part of the employes were 
not confined to the surveyor’s department, but were found in other 
branches of the service—creating delays and mistakes, imperilling the 
safety of the revenue and the interests of importers, and bringing the 
service into reproach. It was intended by chiefs of departments that 


558 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


men were sent to them without brains enough to do the work, and that 
some of those appointed to perform the delicate duties of the appraiser’s, 
office, requiring the special qualities of an expert, were better fitted to 
hoe and to plow. Some employes were incapacited by age, some by 
ignorance, some by carelessness and indifference,” &c. 

The report shows that the law (section 5452, Revised Statutes) against 
gratuities to revenue officers had become a dead letter; collector ad¬ 
mitted that it was not, and could not be enforced. I beg to refer to his 
entire letter to the commission, under date of May 17, 1877, printed 
in the “second report,” in support of the foregoing proposition, that 
an important statute had then been allowed to become a dead letter. 

In the course of his testimony before the commission, Collector 
Arthur said, regarding complaints against the different departments 
of his office, “some are for inefficiency, some are for neglect of duty, 
some for inebriety, and some for improper conduct in various ways, 
some for want of integrity, and some for accepting bribes.” 

I need not enlarge upon this branch of the subject. The disclosures 
of the Jay Commission and those of the Bingham and Hinds Commis¬ 
sion (1878) show, I think, clearly enough that if frauds are not more 
extensive since the repeal of the moieties act in 1874, they are, at least, 
not less extensive. 

I am constrained to give the following quotation from the “third” 
report of the Jay Commission, page 5: One of the weighers testified 
that a schedule (Appendix M) of irregular fees had been adopted by 
the ‘board of weighers’ to make those charges uniform, which they 
illegally collect from merchants, ship-owners or agents, and city weigh¬ 
ers, for special returns, certified copies of returns, and other certificates; 
that the weighers f requently delay to make returns of weight to the custom¬ 
house until the importer pays him these irregular charges for a copy of his 
return of weight. It is proper to add, in regard to this allegation, that 
certain weighers addressed a note to the commission denying that the 
list in question had been adopted by the weighers; hut fees mentioned 
in it were shown 1 to accord with those that were proven to have been paid. ” 

I wish to submit for consideration the proposition that dutiable mer¬ 
chandise should be weighed under the direction of the appraiser and 
not of the collector. 

The appraiser is the assessing officer; he determines the amouut of 
duty due to the Government, reports the fact to the collector, and the 
latter official collects the money. This course is pursued in regard to all 
ad valorem rate of duty-paying goods. But in regard to certain specific 
rate of duty-paying goods, heavy articles handled by the weigher’s de¬ 
partment, the duty is practically both assessed and collected by one 
officer, the collector, the appraiser simply stating what the legal rate 
of duty is. but knowing nothing of the quantity of merchandise upon 
which duty is assessed and collected. 

I see no good reason why the moieties act, covering power to seize 
books and papers, should not be again made part of the machinery for 
collecting the customs revenues, whether that revenue shall continue 
to be raised, as now. largely by ad valorem rates, or, as I hope it will 
be, wholly by specific rates. 

I do not think that honest merchants ever have or ever would object 
to such a law as oppressive. It is to the interest of honest merchants 
that the revenue should be collected; not a part of it, but all of it. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 559 


A member of one of the large importing houses here said to me re¬ 
cently: “I think the repeal of the moieties law, under the circum¬ 
stances, (and he knew the circumstances as I have described them in 
this report,) was a very iniquitous act. ’ 1 To the question, • ‘ Would you 
object to Government officials looking at your books?” he replied, 
promptly, “I am willing that Government agents should at any time 
examine my books to the last detail.” 

18. “Would it be practicable in the large American consular dis¬ 
tricts, such as London. Paris, Berlin, &c., for American consular agents, 
no matter how numerous and alert, to personally examine articles to be 
shipped from thence to American ports, and to verity the correctness 
of invoiced values ? In which consular districts can American consular 
officers safely and surely ascertain and report the true invoiced values 
of every shipment? Is it likely foreign governments in which such 
American consular officers are stationed would abstain from complaints 
to this Government, if American consuls made vexatious delays in ex¬ 
amining values and certifying invoices? What tees are now exacted on 
each shipment in London and in England by our consuls for certifying 
invoices, even of small articles and of little value?” 

I do not think it is practicable for consular agents to materially aid 
the appraising officers in fixing foreign market values. It is certainly 
impracticable for them to examine the contents of packages in large 
districts, such as London, Paris, &c. I am not prepared to say in what 
districts such a practice would be practicable. 

The assumption of the question that foreign governments would, under 
the circumstances named, interfere to protect the commerce of their sub¬ 
jects, is doubtless well founded. 

I am without any particular information on the subject of consular 
fees. If illegal fees are charged, I am not aware of it. I am of opinion, 
in a general way, that frauds upon the revenue must be prevented, if at 
all, at home. I doubt if the consular service, even if well administered, 
could be made of much use in detecting frauds. I believe, however, that 
special agents have obtained valuable information for the customs de¬ 
partment in the course of their employment in foreign countries, and 
may doubtless do so hereafter if sent abroad. 

19. “Under the law as it now is, the rates of duty levied by a col¬ 
lector can be supervised and revised by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
and finally by the Federal judicial power; but, according to the analo¬ 
gies of State taxing laws, neither the Treasury Department, nor the 
President, nor the judicial power can interfere with, or revise, or set 
aside the decision of the appraising department respecting dutiable 
values, if the forms of the law have been complied with. Would it be 
safe or useful to the revenues and just to the importers that the execu¬ 
tive or the judicial powers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with 
the ascertainment of the dutiable value which is to be the basis on which 
the collector is to levy ad valorem rates?” 

I do not think it advisable to change the law in regard to the super¬ 
vision and revision by the Secretary of the Treasury and the judiciary 
of rates of duty “levied by a collector.” I do not think there are any 
serious difficulties in this direction. I would not enlarge the jurisdic¬ 
tion of the executive or the judicial powers. 

20. “The existing rate of duty on wool is a combination of an ad 
valorem and a specific rate. I desire to have prepared and presented to 


5G0 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


me a very careful and accurate analysis of the history of the several 
rates of duty on wool since I860, and of the working of the complicated 
rates on wool that are now in force. ’ ’ 

This is not a “wool port.” Hardly any, if any, importations of wool 
are now, or ever have been, made at Chicago. I am, therefore, entirely 
unacquainted with the “working of the complicated rates on wool.” I 
therefore beg, respectfully, to be excused from further reply to this 
question. 

21. “Is it believed that at the large Atlantic ports the practice gen¬ 
erally prevails, or prevails at all, of the payment of money by arriving 
passengers to customs inspectors of baggage, either to prevent or facil¬ 
itate or hasten an examination of baggage to ascertain whether or not 
it contains dutiable articles; and if such a practice exists as the law con¬ 
demns and forbids, can it be prevented, and how!” 

It is believed that at the port of Hew York the practice generally pre¬ 
vails, or did prevail down to a late date, of the payment of money by 
arriving passengers to prevent examination of baggage and assessment 
of duty on its contents. 

I believe the practice of receiving money by baggage inspectors for 
connivance at frauds can be prevented precisely as a merchant prevents 
peculation in his ware-rooms—by a rigid business system and vigilance 
in enforcing observance of it from highest to lowest of the force of em¬ 
ployes. 

In a letter to the Jay Commission, under date of May 9, 1877, A. B. 
Cornell, then naval officer, discussing the subject of “gratuities,” said: 
“These clerks, whose administrative action may accelerate or retard 
business, or otherwise affect the interest of importers, are but human; 
and whenever there is a coincidence of temptation, frailty, and oppor¬ 
tunity, there can naturally he hut one result .” 

The italics in the foregoing quotation are mine. I have no sympathy 
with the theory that it is “natural” for men to steal; that it is “but 
human” to indulge in petty thieving. I believe it to be the duty of 
an official charged with the control and supervision of a large number 
of men, first, to impress upon them a sense of duty to be honest, and, 
next, to see that they are honest. I believe that the men who hold 
theories like those implied in the passage quoted from Mr. Cornell are 
responsible for the fraud and corruption which huyj^soTong prevailed 
in the Hew York custom-house. 

22. “Does the evidence tend to show that in respect to the articles 
on which the Treasury has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed 
by the law the rate has been carried by Congress beyond and above the 
line which the Government can surely protect, and into a region where 
smugglers and dishonest shippers will be very powerful in evading the 
law!” 

I am of the opinion, of course, that a low rate of duty is less difficult 
of collection than a high rate, but I believe that a high rate can be 
collected. The excise on whiskey (90 cents per gallon on an article 
worth about 15 cents) is evidence that a very high tax can be collected. 
The frauds on the revenue through the manufacture of whiskey were 
enormous, probably, from 1870 to 1875-’76; but the attention of the 
Government being specially directed to the subject, they were sup¬ 
pressed, and now I believe the excise on whiskey is almost fully collected. 
The fact that collection is not a question of rate wholly, or even chiefly, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 561 


is shown by the circumstance that the customs revenues are, as a rule, 
faithfully collected at all the large Atlantic ports except the port of New 
York. I assume this to be a fact because in all the investigations with 
which I am familiar, covering a period of about fifteen years, I am not 
aware that any very extensive frauds have been discovered at either of 
the other Atlantic ports—Boston, Philadelphia, or Baltimore. 

23. “Has what has been true of the failure of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment to enforce the revenue law in New York been generally true, and 
for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic ports?” 

I think not. My answer to Question 22 covers the ground of this 
question. 

24. “If false returns or reports to the collectors of dutiable values 
have been made during a considerable time past, why have not the 
persons or officials concerned therein been complained of, arrested, in¬ 
dicted, and punished ? 7 7 

I cannot answer this question better, I believe, than by quoting two 
passages from Collector Arthur’s letter to the Jay Commission, of May 
17,1877. The first of these quotations relates to the subject of “gratui¬ 
ties” bestowed upon certain clerks by importers, nominally for hasten¬ 
ing the clearance of goods, and is as follows: 

“The strict law now on the statute-book has proved practically inop¬ 
erative, for the simple reason that it has been found impossible to pro¬ 
cure the evidence of its violation. A strenuous effort in this direction 
was made a year or more ago, but, as the testimony could come only 
from the importers or their brokers on the one side, or the entry clerks 
on the other, and as neither can be compelled to testify, the attempt 
wholly failed. I do not believe that any new regulation not involving a 
change in the mode of doing business can be more successful. 77 

The second quotation relates to the subject of bribing inspectors of 
passengers’ baggage, and is as follows : 

“I have read the remarks of the surveyor as to the inspectors, who 
are more immediately under his control, and concur in what he says. 
I may, in addition, call your attention to the fact that when last year a 
prosecution was instituted against inspectors who were alleged to have 
received money for passing passengers’ baggage, it failed, because it 
was necessary to prove not only the receipt of the money, but that it 
was received as an inducement to an illegal act, and, consequently, that 
there were dutiable goods in the baggage. The latter fact it is impos¬ 
sible to prove, unless the baggage is seized on the spot, which, with the 
present facilities for examination of baggage, cannot ordinarily be done 
in those cases where the payment of money can be detected.” 

I believe a thorough examination of the history of frauds, great and 
small, at the port of New York will show that the officials of that port, 
high and low, have been of the opinion that it is impossible to prevent 
frauds, and that this is the main reason why the persons and officials 
guilty of frauds have not been punished. 

Another class of influences may be referred to as contributing to the 
failure generally of a faithful execution of the laws, and that is politi¬ 
cal influence. The following-described case of this class transpired 
shortly previous to the investigation of the Bingham and Hinds Com¬ 
mission, in 1878, to wit, the Austin case, where an entry clerk was 
convicted of receiving money from a broker. Upon Secretary Sher- 

36 a 


562 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


man’s order prohibiting the acceptance of gratuities, the broker discon¬ 
tinued the practice. After a while Austin demanded money, the broker 
refused, citing the order of the Secretary. The entry clerk sneered at 
the idea of his being influenced by an order of the Secretary. Finally, 
the case was carried before Collector Arthur, and the offence was so 
serious that he promptly removed Austin. 

In addition to these various contributing causes to the failure of 
punishment of persons and officials for frauds on the customs revenue 
is the general cause of the failure of justice in this country, through 
an indisposition to punish respectable criminals—a feeling of false 
sympathy and tendencies. 

In conclusion, permit me to say that I believe undervaluation can be 
suppressed at the port of New York (it exists, I believe, to no consid¬ 
erable extent at any other port) in a very short time, when the collec¬ 
tor, the local appraiser, and the general appraiser shall resolutely de¬ 
termine that it shall cease. And in support of this view I call attention 
to the nature of the law touching undervaluation, to the fact that it 
places absolutely in the hands of those three officials the question of 
foreign market value, and that without appeal. I think that this great 
power should be exerted strenuously, because I would show no mercy 
to the foreign manufacturer guilty of an attempted fraud upon the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States. 

This (following) is, I believe, the routine course of consignments: 
The foreign manufacturer invoices his goods to the agent in New York, 
and swears before the consul of his district that the invoice is in all 
respects true; that it contains the true market values of the goods, &c. 
When the goods arrive in New York the agent there enters them at the 
custom-house (often) at an advance of from 5 to 9 per cent, over the 
invoice prices, swearing that such advance represents the true foreign 
market value, &c., and admitting thereby by implication that his 
principal, the foreign manufacturer, swore falsely before the consul. 
When the goods reach the appraiser he (often) advauces them over the 
entry price from 5 to 9 per cent. So far, it is a struggle on the part of 
the foreign manufacturer and his agent, assisted (perhaps) by the ap¬ 
praiser, to avoid a penalty. If the appraiser raises the goods beyond 
Ihe penalty line, there is a merchant appraisement, in which event, as 
before remarked, the local appraiser, the general appraiser, and the 
collector are jointly (assuming that they are agreed in a determined 
purpose to break up undervaluation) masters of the situation. 

After such a course as I have described, I do not think that the 
foreign manufacturer should be shown any mercy. I think he should 
be compelled to pay duty on every franc of the value of his merchan¬ 
dise. 

Yours, respectfully, 

« CHARLES H. HAM, 

United States Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 563 


J. A. NOWAK—Appointed Examiner February 3, 1885. 

Port of Chicago, III., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 19, 1885. 

Sir : In accordance with Department circular of the 27th of August 
last, marked “ strictly confidential,” I submit replies to the following 
questions: 

3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified at this 
office by actual measurement of the width of the fabric, and as often as 
expedient of the length. Dress-goods in roll or piece are occasionally 
measured in the length, it being difficult to reroll them in their original 
shape. I have so far found no error in the invoiced measurements of 
the length. 

10. There is no doubt, confusion, or conflict of opinion at this office 
respecting any of the elements to be ascertained in order to fix and 
declare the dutiable value. The place and time and the standard to be 
applied are, in my opinion, sufficiently defined by the statutes and the 
Department decisions. 

12. The examiner is primarily responsible, in the usual course of 
business, for a false return of value to the collector. The salaries of 
examiners at this office, I am informed, vary from $1,000 to $2,000 per 
annum. At this office the appraiser is consulted, and decides all doubt¬ 
ful questions, and exercises a general supervision over all business 
transacted. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific duties wherever it can be 
made would certainly be a benefit to the revenue and simplify the bsui- 
ness of collecting the same. 

I know of no way in which a simple specific duty could be applied 
to textile fabrics that would be satisfactory in its operation. 

The remaining questions I omit to answer for want of sufficient reli¬ 
able information on the various subjects. 

I would also apologize for my late answer on the ground of illness. 

Very respectfutly, 

J. A. NOWAK, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. O. 


564 REPOET OF TIIE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 80. 

H. S. WHEELER—Appointed Examiner September 13, 1872. 

Port of Chicago, III., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 23, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your circular letter of date September 9, I would 
say I am an examiner of fourteen years’ experience in all classes of 
merchandise, and am familiar with rates and classifications, but beyond 
that I have not been in contact with higher authorities, and you will 
undoubtedly have better answers from better sources. 

Question No. 1.—I have no positive evidence beyond the statements 
of importers as to practices in other ports made at our office for object¬ 
ive purposes, and possibly true. 

2. My position as examiner in appraiser’s department precludes the 
possibility of my answering this question with full knowledge. 

3. By weighing and measuring. 

4. None in this port, as it is not without our scope to call on im¬ 
porters and see other packages of same invoice. 

5. I am in no way connected with the weighing department beyond 
my position as examiner, and in this port we have full confidence in 
the weighing department. 

6. In answer to this question, my views are expressed better than I 
can express them by the appraiser of this port, Mr. Ham. 

7. I do not know of any. 

8. So far as I have an opinion, the failure has been at the great port 
of this country, and perhaps at small ports of entry; but as to reliable 
evidence, I have none. 

9. I consider the appraiser decidedly beyond all suspicion as to this 
port. 

10. None whatever. When in doubt we consult our chief, in whom 
we have all confidence in all respects. 

11. This question is by preceding ones, I think, answered. 

12. We have no deputy appraiser; everything* goes over the ap¬ 
praiser’s desk, or the desk of the chief clerk in his absence, which is 
very seldom. 

13. None to my knowledge. 

14. My position in this port does not enable me to answer this ques¬ 
tion. 

15. No reason beyond human nature. 

16. This is a great question. I from my experience am inclined to 
a specific duty, if it can be properly brought about. 

17. I think we have had more seizures since 1874, but we have uo 
false reports from this office. 

18. Unless duplicate appraisers were established abroad, my opinion 
is that it would be impracticable for consuls to see all the goods. 

19. This is a question involving the right of a general government as 
to its judicial rights, and one I can hardly discuss. 

20. My idea is that a combination on wool duty is as good as on any 
other article. I have already expressed my opinion as in favor of a 
specific duty. 

21. It was the prevailing opinion that the inspectors at the port of 
New York were too lenient with arriving passengers, but of late vears 
under new order of things, I think this has not prevailed so extensively. 


REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 565 


22. This may possibly be the case, but my position precludes a val¬ 
uable idea as to this question. 

23 From my acquired knowledge, I am of the opinion that New York 
has been more loose in this respect than other ports. 

24. This question refers more to other ports than this one, because I 
^ • ? ve are c ^ ean this respect; so I cannot say why such persons or 
officials have not been complained of, if such exist. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , 


H. S. WHEELER, 

Examiner of Merchandise. 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 81. 

FRANK E. BARNARD—Appointed Inspector, Brazos, February 1, 1866 ; Deputy Col¬ 
lector and Inspector, Corpus Christi, October 10, 1868; Examiner October 22, 1883. 

Port of Chicago, III., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 26, 1885. 
Dear Sir : In reply to your favor of the 9th instant, I would re¬ 
spectfully state that my duties as examiner of tea at this port do not 
familiarize me with the levying or collection of duties. 

Any answer I might make would not come from personal knowledge, 
but from hearsay only, and consequently would be of no value to the 
Department. 

Very respectfully, 

FRANK E. BARNARD, 

Tea Examiner , Port of Chicago. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 82. 

WILLIAM H. LECKIE—Appointed Examiner February 3, 1885. 

Port of Chicago, III.. 

Appraiser’s Office , October 3, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your printed circular, dated September 9, 
marked “strictly confidential,” requesting me to answer certain ques¬ 
tions propounded by you. In reply, I will answer the following ques¬ 
tions, viz: 

Question 1.—Answer: I can only say that at Chicago the duty has 
been levied and collected according to law and the decisions of the 
Department. 

Question 2.—Answer: I am of the opinion that all goods that pay 
purely specific duties are properly, or should be, collected. 

Question 3.—A nswer: The invoice measurement is generally accepted, 
except when the goods seem to be over weight or in excess of the invoice 
quantity given. In such cases, goods have been measured and generally 
found to be correct. 




566 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Question 4.—Answer: I have no evidence of any collusion between 
persons making entry of several packages of similar goods on one 
invoice and the entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the appraiser’s 
store for examination a bogus or faise package as a fair sample of one 
in every ten. 

Question 5.—Answer: I have no evidence of false or incompetent 
weighing on the wharves, as that is properly under the charge of the 
collector. 

Question 12.—Answer: The examiner is usually responsible for a 
false return in dutiable value of merchandise to the collector. The 
salary of examiners in Chicago range from $1,000 to $2,000, the ex¬ 
aminer drawing the largest salary being the longest in the service. The 
appraiser at this port has ever since I have been connected with the 
office been consulted on difficult points of the law in classifying goods, 
and has given general and just satisfaction. 

Question 16.—Answer: I think a change from ad valorem rates to 
those of specific would be a benefit to stop the undervaluation of goods ; 
and although some goods might not pay such a high rate of duty as now 
collected, all reputable merchants would be on the same level and could 
import goods by paying the same rate of duty. 

Question 18.—Answer. I think it would be practicable in every consular 
district for American consular agents to examine goods bought for ship¬ 
ment to the United States, and find out from other dealers or manu¬ 
facturers as to the cc rrectness of the value of said goods. It seems to 
me that it would require a very small amount of time to examine sam¬ 
ples submitted by exporters, and that it would not be within the power 
of foreign countries to object to the small delay thereby occasioned. 
The fee prescribed by law is, I believe, $2.50 for a consul’s certificate, 
and I know of no drawback that can properly be allowed. 

Question 19.—Answer: I think it would be entirely unwise to allow 
any law to be enacted to interfere with the dutiable value fixed by the 
appraiser to be changed, provided the same was according to law, and 
the appraiser was honest, competent, and understood his business. 

The other questions submitted by the Secretary, I am not familiar 
enough with to answer them intelligently, and respectfully hope that 
those I have answered will be of some benefit. 

Very respectfully, 

WILLIAM H. LECKIE, 
Examiner , Appraiser’s Office. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. O. 


No. 83. 

JAMES M. BARNES—Appointed Clerk, Chicago, October 11, 1883, and May 6, 1884* 
Examiner February 3, 1885. 

Port of Chicago, III., 
Appraiser’s Office, October 5, 1885. 

Sir: I respectfully acknowledge receipt of your letter dated Sep¬ 
tember 9, requesting me to reply to certain questions therein contained. 

By way of premise, permit me to say that my appointment to the 
customs service dates back only to October 12, 1883. I will, therefore 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 567 


beg leave to be excused from answering any questions or parts of ques¬ 
tions not within the boundaries of my experience. I believe that any 
information which I might compile would be far less a cceptable to you 
than the actual experience of men who have had an opportunity to in¬ 
vestigate for themselves. 

Question 1.—In answer to the first question, I would respectfully say 
that I believe there is some variation in the rate of duty assessed upon 
the same article at different ports. This, however, is not intentional 
fraud, as I believe, but is the result partly of ambiguity in the law itself, 
and partly from the conflicting opinions of the different appraisers. 
Take, for example, 4 4 edible beans and pease. ’’ The Department holds at 
one time that they are 4 4 garden-seeds, ” and dutiable at the rate of 20 
per cent, ad valorem; at another time that they are 44 vegetables,” and 
dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent, ad valorem. No doubt conflicting 
opinions on this subject have also existed at the various ports. This is 
only one of numerous cases. The precise application of the word 
44 partly,” in paragraphs Nos. 216 and 363, T. I., new, have also caused 
rates of duty to vary at different ports. I am not aware that wrong 
classifications have been made intentionally. 

Question 2.—The main opportunity of defrauding the Government 
of the full amount of duty on goods which pay purely specific rates 
lies in false and inadequate returns by weighers and gaugers. I can 
give you no accurate information of misconduct on their part; but 
I have heard it stated that false returns have formerly been made at the 
port of New York. Goods of this character which are found, in con¬ 
nection with others, subject to ad valorem rates of duty, are carefully 
weighed at this office. 

Questions. —Incase the goods contain wool, the weights are com¬ 
pared with the invoiced weights, and the widths with the invoiced 
widths. In goods not containing wool, the widths are always c jm- 
pared, and an examiner’s familiarity with them would enable him to 
detect an important departure from the invoiced quantity. It is not 
customary to ascertain the actual lineal measure of such goods, on ac¬ 
count of injury to them. 

Question 4.—I can submit no evidence upon this question. I am 
aware that this form of fraud is possible, but can be guarded against 
and thwarted by the appraiser and his examiners, provided several 
packages other than those designated by the deputy collector be called 
to the appraiser’s store for examination. 

Question 5 .— In general, the weight of the sample box, cask, or barrel 
ordered to the appraiser’s store have been found to correspond with 
the return of the weighers. I am unable to produce any evidence of 
fraud. 

Question 6.—I believe that certain portions of the existing law could 
be revised in such a manner that many doubts would be removed from 
the minds of both importers and customs officers. For example, let 
us take a piece of silk of such a character that it may be used both for 
trimming hats and for other purposes. The appraiser returns the goods 
as manufactures of silk, dutiable under T. I., new, 383, at the rate of 
50 per cent, ad valorem. The importer appeals to the Department, 
claiming that this silk should be classified as 44 hat-trimming,” at the 
rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem, in accordance with paragraph 448. 
The Department then affirms the classification made by the appraiser, 
whereupon the importer carries the case into court. Both importer 


568 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and appraiser are honest in their opinions. The dispute arises from 
the fact that each places a different construction upon the paragraph 
cited. 

I am unable to give information in regard to 11 collectors’ suits 7 7 at 
the ports mentioned, but I am of opinion that the Attorney-General, 
the Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorney, and the judges can 
succeed in obtaining a speedy trial. 

If suits are allowed to remain so long at issue, it seems only just that 
the merchant should receive interest upon the money thus recovered. 
However, if a speedy trial could be obtained, the payment of interest 
would be unnecessary. A new tribunal could be formed composed of 
men specially adapted to the work in hand, by means of which more 
correct verdicts could be obtained and the suits be more promptly dis¬ 
posed of. The present system could be made much more efficient if 
properly managed. 

Question 7.—There is no doubt that silks are systematically under¬ 
valued at the port of New York. I speak confidently, from the fact 
that Chicago importers are compelled to buy their silks in New York. 
They are unable to import direct on account of inability to compete 
with the New York agents of the foreign manufacturers, who have paid 
duty on a less valuation than would be accepted by the costoms officers 
at other ports. Recently, while in conversation with an importer who 
had just returned from France, I was informed that he could import 
advantageously everything except silk goods. These he could buy in 
New York on much more favorable terms. I see no good reason why 
the appraising officers in New York should not become very expert in 
determining the true foreign values of silks, and thus be able to thwart 
every attempt at undervaluation. Of course, vigilance, integrity, and 
familiarity with the goods will enable the customs officers to collect 
the full amount of duty. The same may be said of such other articles 
as are undervalued. 

Question 8.—There are a number of reasons for this failure : 

1. The high rate of duty on silks invites attention to this particular 
field. 

2. The fact that the foreign manufacturers consign their goods direct 
to their agents in New York causes them to be more desirous of invoic¬ 
ing at less than their value. 

3. A desire on the part of New York merchants to compel interior 
buyers to repair to them instead of seeking the foreign market. 

4. The complex manner in which the appraising department of that 
port is conducted. 

It seems only a logical conclusion to say that dishonesty must have 
been practised in order to accomplish the result now obtained. Whether 
such dishonesty has reached beyond New York, even to the Treasury 
Department, I am unable to say. But it is certain that silk goods could 
not have continued to be undervalued for any prolonged period with¬ 
out a guilty knowledge on the part of the appraising officers. 

Question 9.—I believe satisfactory evidence can be produced showing 
that at ports other than New York certain lines of goods have been con¬ 
tinually undervalued, and, as a result, appraisers have unintentionally 
reported to the collector false dutiable values. I refer particularly to 
Japanese goods. Sometimes these goods are consigned by the manu¬ 
facturer to his agent, and sometimes imported under "bona fide purchase. 
This is also an inviting field for undervaluation, owing to the high rate 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 569 


of duty imposed on such goods, and the general ignorance of apprais¬ 
ing officers and merchants in regard to the foreign value of such goods. 
Many of these articles are manufactured in private houses in Japan, 
and for this reason importers claim that prices are necessarily very 
elastic. I am of opinion that nearly all ports have suffered from under¬ 
valuations of this kind. One firm of this city was honest enough to 
admit that his consignment of Japanese goods was undervalued, and 
voluntarily raised the prices to the market value on making entry. 

Question 10.—The only conflict of opinion respecting elements of du¬ 
tiable value which I can recall was iu regard to the propriety of in¬ 
cluding certain outer coverings, such as barrels containing Portland 
cement, in the dutiable value of the goods. A recent decision of the 
Department has very properly settled this matter. But the number of 
appeals which have been made upon cartons, &c., shows that the mer¬ 
chants do not properly understand the force of section 7. 

Question 11.—I do not know that an average estimate could be made 
of the undervaluation referred to; but a large number of the invoices, 
especially Japanese, could be identified. 

Question 12.—Of course the dutiable values are usually made up by 
the examiners and deputy appraisers, subject to the inspection of the 
appraiser, and any doubtful question regarding such dutiable value is 
referred to the judgment of the appraiser. The appraiser, is, there¬ 
fore, primarily responsible for a false return. 

At this office the appraiser receives $3,000 per annum. There are 
also four examiners, whose salaries are, respectively, $2,000, $1,800, 
$1,600, and $1,400 per annum. 

The appraiser should be a man of extended experience with mer¬ 
chandise, of broad culture or range of information, and thoroughly 
conversant with the customs laws and regulations; he should, in fact, 
be able to intelligently decide all questions referred to him by his ex¬ 
aminers. 

Question 13.—I am not aware that any consular agent has connived 
at fraud in presentation of false values to appraisers. 

Question 14.—I have previously stated my views on this question, and 
can furnish nothing more conclusive than that which has already been 
given. I am unable to point out individuals, or explain how such cor¬ 
ruption fund has been raised. 

Question 15.—I see no reason to believe that similar corrupt influences 
will not be brought to bear in the future as in the past. A strenuous 
effort on the part of the Treasury Department would of course have a 
very beneficial effect, and cause those who are engaged in such cor¬ 
ruption to be extremely cautious. If fraud shall be eradicated, it will 
be due to an earnest effort on the part of both Treasury and customs 
officials. I believe it can be accomplished. Honest, earnest work is 
necessary. 

Question 16.—I am greatly in favor of the application of specific rates 
of duty to all classes of goods for which it is practicable; and if such 
rates are not made dependent upon values, the evils of undervaluation 
are necessarily removed. Having fixed a specific rate upon goods in¬ 
dependent of their value, the tendency would be to import only articles 
of good quality, since inferior articles would be subject to the same 
rate of duty as those of better quality. The main thing to be guarded 
against in that case would be false weights and measures, and these 


570 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY* 


could be safely guarded by means of only a portion of the care now 
bestowed on foreign market values. 

I am convinced that specific rates could be applied to textile fabrics* 
but am unable to see how rates could be made elastic enough to cover 
the various classes of such goods without having reference to values* 
Even then there is little danger of undervaluation, except in goods 
approaching some of the qualifications in value prescribed by the law. 

In silk goods, however, the value is often a question of weight. In 
such cases weights could be substituted for values. 

Question 17.—Having had no experience with the operations of the 
u moiety law” or the law in relation to the seizure of books and papers, 
as referred to by you, I would respectfully ask to be excused from an¬ 
swering this question. 

Question 18.—It seems to me that such a plan would be open to ob¬ 
jections. The same work of examination would need to be done again 
when the goods arrived in the United States. It would also cause 
delay in the shipment of goods and be a source of complaint, both at 
home and abroad. Yet consular officers can certainly render valuable 
aid to appraising officers in obtaining foreign values. 

I know of no consular district in which the consul would be able to 
furnish the true values of every shipment; but there are certain places 
which export large quantities of a standard line of goods, whose values 
should be well known to the consul. Edinburgh, Bradford, Notting¬ 
ham, Belfast, Birmingham, St. Galle, and Chemnitz are among this 
class. 

The usual consular fee is 16s. 6d. 

Question 19.—I am not in favor of placing such unrestrained power 
in the hands of any one man. No doubt the appraiser’s familiarity with 
goods makes him peculiarly fitted for fixing foreign values. Yet, in 
case of an error in judgment or inexperience on the part of the appraiser, 
ora dispute between the appraiser and an importer in regard to values, 
there should yet be a reserve power to which appeal may be had. 
Merchant appraisement alone is not sufficient. 

Question 20.—I may very properly be excused from answering this 
question, inasmuch as no unmanufactured wool is received at this port. 
I might describe the working of the tariff rates on woollen manufact¬ 
ures, but I understand your question to refer only to unmanufactured 
wool. 

Question 21.—The opinion is prevalent here that money is paid to 
inspectors of baggage at New York, in order to hasten examination, 
and also to prevent proper examination when it would result in find¬ 
ing dutiable articles. Such a practice can be overcome only by vigor¬ 
ous measures on the part of both the higher customs officials and the 
Department. 

Question 22.—The articles which are undervalued are in almost every 
instance subject to a high rate of duty. They also belong to a class of 
which the values are fluctuating and not easy to be obtained by cus¬ 
toms officers. With the prospect of such good results on the one hand, 
and the probability of escaping detection on the other, the foreign man¬ 
ufacturer yields to this great temptation. I am not prepared to say 
that the Government cannot collect the full amount of duty even on 
the highest duty-bearing goods. It, of course, requires hard work and 
vigilance. But I do believe the expense and labor of collection is in¬ 
tensely increased on account of certain excessive rates of duty. No 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


571 


doubt smuggling and dishonesty are greatly increased on account of 
the high rate of duty on silks alone. 

Question 23.—I do not believe that the same combination of circum¬ 
stances and evil results which have existed at New York are to be found 
at the other Atlantic ports. The volume of business and the location 
of the agents of the foreign manufacturers are circumstances peculiar to 
New York. 

Question 24.—As I believe this evil has existed principally at New 
York, I will confine my reply mainly to that port. 

(1.) A desire to favor New York and her merchants as against the 
Government. 

(2.) The volume of business and the manner in which the appraising 
department is organized and conducted have made detection difficult. 

(3.) Where so much business is done and so many merchants and 
customs officers interested, and the evil has taken such deep root, the 
political prestige of the parties concerned has become very formidable. 

Allow me to add, by way of digression, that I believe that the civil- 
service law applied to minot* positions will be a very important factor 
in removing such political influence. I believe that instances are nu¬ 
merous where New York customs officials have been spared from merited 
punishment solely on account of the political forces which they were 
able to set in motion. 

Hoping this necessary delay in answering will be excused, 

I remain, yours, very respectfully, 

JAMES M. BARNES, 
Examiner , TJ. S. Appraiser’’ s Office. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. 


PORT OF CINCINNATI, 


No. 84. 

WILLIAM CALDWELL—Appointed Surveyor April 21, 1885. 

Custom-House, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

Surveyor’s Office , October 10, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to your communication of August 27, 1885, I have the 
honor to answer the interrogatories therein contained as follows: 

1. I know of no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied 
and collected as the law prescribed. 

2. I know of no evidence that the full amount of purely specific rates 

has not been collected. ^ x ._ _ , . , 

3 Invoice measurements and weights of textile fabrics are verified 
or corrected by the appraiser at this port by actual measurement and 
weighing. The appraiser with the examiner examines the merchandise 

personahy.^ ^ ^ iustauce at this port of collusion of the kind referred 

to in the question. 

5. I know of none. 




572 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


6. Since I have taken charge of the office at this port no differences 
between importers and the collector growing out of decisions by the 
latter and the Treasury in respect to rates of duty have resulted in 
suits. So far as I know the present law works satisfactorily. 

7. I know nothing about the facts inquired about in questions 7, 8, 
and 9. 

10. There is not now or has there ever been any conflict of opinion 
respecting the ascertainment or fixing the dutiable value of merchandise. 
The means defined by the statutes are ample, were they fulfilled. Con¬ 
sular officers are derelict in their duties in forwarding market rates of 
merchandise in their respective districts. Many consular officers make 
no report to this office whatever of merchandise exported from their 
districts. This is particularly the case in the French districts, Paris 
included. No market reports or samples of textile fabrics are received 
at this port from Paris. 

11. I know of no undervaluation at this port. 

12. Appraisers are solely and entirely responsible for the return of 
dutiable values to the surveyor. The appraiser at this port examines 
each and every invoice of merchandise, and holds himself responsible 
for the correct valuation, believing it to be his full duty, as required by 
the statutes. Any false returns reported would be directly and justly 
charged to him. He in every case at this port reports the dutiable 
value. His salary is $3,000 per annum. 

13. Have no knowledge of facts asked for in questions 13,14, and 15. 

16. I do not believe that specific duties entirely would be beneficial 
or possible, or would they help to diminish the tendency to bribery. 
Specific rates cannot be applied to all textile fabrics. Values must 
control the rate of duty on textile fabrics or else prohibit the importa¬ 
tion of certain grades. 

17. So far as this port is.concerned I do not think that the repeal of 
the moiety law, and the other legislation referred to in this question, has 
increased the false reports by appraisers. 

18. 1 have no knowledge which would justify me attempting to answer 
the first, second, and third part of this question. The fee exacted by 
consul in London and in England for certifying invoice is $2.50. 

19. I know of no dissatisfaction at this port with the working of the 
present system. I have heard of no complaints from importers, nor do 
I see that the Government is being wronged thereby, and therefore I 
see no reason for a change in the law in respect to the ascertainment of 
the dutiable value of merchandise, or to extend the jurisdiction of the 
executive or judicial powers to interfere with the same. 

20. The present rate of duty on wool is not a compound duty, but is 
specific—so much per pound. There is no wool imported at this port, 
and so can give but little information as to the workings of the present 
tariff. 

21. Question 21 does not apply to this port. 

22. I know of no evidence tending to show that the Treasury has 
failed to collect the entire duty prescribed by law on any article at this 
port. 

23. This is a matter I know nothing of. 

24. I know of no false returns or reports of dutiable values having 
been made at this port. 

Kespectfully submitted. 

WM. CALDWELL, 
Surveyor of Customs . 


EE PORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


573 


PORT OF DETROIT. 


No. 85. 

WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE, Jr.—A ppointed Storekeeper January 16, 1877; Collector 

December 20, 1883. 

Custom-House, Detroit, Mich., 
Collector's Office , September 10,1885. 

Sir: 1 liave the honor to acknowledge receipt of confidential circu¬ 
lar request for information and my views on customs laws and the ad¬ 
ministration thereof, &c. 

Premising my reply thereto with the statement that my experience 
in the customs service has been somewhat limited, that all this experi¬ 
ence is confined to the administration of this office, and trusting that 
it will not be overlooked that the answers herein to the specific ques¬ 
tions asked have reference only to this port, I proceed to reply. 

For the sake of brevity, I take up the inquiries in their numerical 
order, referring to the number of the section or paragraph without 
stating its substance. To the 

1 and 2. Would say that I know of no evidence. 

3. Invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified usually by 
a comparison of the tickets or cards on the pieces or bolts with the in¬ 
voice. In cases of doubt or suspicion as to the correctness of the carded 
quantity, actual measurement is made to verify them. 

4. Know of no such evidence, and am satisfied there is none to sus¬ 
tain such a charge against the officers at this port. 

5. Know of no evidence of any false, incompetent, or inadequate 
weighing or measuring on the wharves or elsewhere. 

6. I can suggest no amendments to existing laws as regards the set¬ 
tlement, of differences between importers and Government officials as 
to rates of duty, unless, indeed, the establishment by law of a tribunal 
having especial jurisdiction of such cases might be considered advisa¬ 
ble. I believe such a tribunal would tend to a prompter settlement of 
such cases. Whether a plan could be devised by the law officers of the 
Government for the more prompt disposition of these cases under exist¬ 
ing law, is a question, it seems to me, that can be answered by those 
officers only. The judiciary is all powerful in their sphere, and unless 
they entered heartily into such an arrangement it would most surely 
fail. 

Few cases ever get to court from this district, one only having been 
taken there in several years, that of D. M. Ferry & Co., against me, as 
collector, on the question of classification of seeds, as to what do and 
do not constitute “garden seeds.” This was decided by the United 
States district court here in March last, and in this case the honorable 
Attorney-General has directed the suing out of a writ of error to the Su¬ 
preme Court. As to the question of iuterest as part of damages in col¬ 
lectors’ suits, I do not feel competent to give an opinion. 

7 and 8. I do not and cannot have any knowledge on these points. 

9. No evidence is in existence, that I am aware of, and I am positive 
no charges were ever made to this office, that the appraiser at this port 
ever knowingly reported talse dutiable values. The only complaint 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


5?4 


ever made to my knowledge against the appraiser here, is that he leans 
too much towards the Government, and returns values, if anything, too 
light. 

10. There was at one time, but not recently, some doubt in the ap¬ 
praiser’s department as to what should aud what should not be included 
to make dutiable value under section 7, act of March 3, 1883, but there 
is none now; the law, as defined by the decision of the Department, it 
is believed, now being fully understood. 

11. Is answered, so far as I can answer, by reply to the ninth para¬ 
graph. 

12. Speaking for this port and generally here, the appraiser is respon¬ 
sible for all returns of values. The only exception that occurs to me is 
in the case of returns of values of live stock, for which a special stock 
inspector is primarily responsible, the appraiser generally accepting his 
report of values in such cases. This stock inspector receives a compen¬ 
sation of $2.50 per diem. 

The appraiser has one assistant, a deputy collector and examiner, 
salary $2,000 per year, but the appraiser ordinarily is responsible, as, 
wlieu present, he personally examines into all matters of this kind. 
This can be done at this port, but at the larger ports it would be im¬ 
possible, and at such ports the primary responsibility for return of 
values would rest on the deputies and expert examiners who pass di¬ 
rectly upon the goods. 

While the appraisers may be, and perhaps are, legally responsible for 
the acts of their subordinates, it seems to me they are not morally so. 
It would be a manifest injustice to hold an appraiser responsible for re¬ 
turn of false values of goods of a class for the examination of which an 
expert is employed in his department. 

13. I know of no evidence on this point. 

14. As false values have not to my knowledge, or in my belief, been 
knowingly reported to this office by the appraisers or customs officials, 
I can only say that if false values have been reported in any instance, I 
believe such returns were not tainted with fraud on the part < f the 
officials. It has always been my opinion that, within a certain limit, it 
is almost if not quite impossible to detect undervaluation, and my ex¬ 
perience has satisfied me that the customs laws are honestly and con¬ 
scientiously enforced at this port, and that while it may be and is possi¬ 
ble that the revenue is defrauded to some extent at this port by reason 
of false valuation, I am well satisfied that it is not with the connivance 
of customs officials. Indeed, if the statements of some importers here 
are to be believed, goods are valued here higher than at other ports, 
and that the errors, if any, in valuations reported are always in favor 
of the Government and against them. 

15. If false valuations have in fact come of bribery in the past, I see 
no reason why they should not be procured by similar means in the 
future, nor do I see any absolutely certain way to prevent it. True, the 
change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty would stop the false 
return of values , but then the motive for bribery would still exist, only 
instead of the appraising officers, the inspectors, weighers, aud gaugers 
would be the persons sought to be intiuenced corruptly to make false 
returns of quantity. Fraud of this latter kind, however, I think could, 
if not more easily discovered, be more easily prevented by frequent 
irregular transfers of such officers from one subdistrict to anot her. These 
irregular transfers of inspectors, weighers, &c., I believe are the best 
preventives of bribery. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


575 


16. This question is in the main answered above. I do not believe a 
change from ad valorem to specific rates would help to diminish a ten¬ 
dency to bribery. It would only subject another class of officials to 
temptation, as false returns of quantity can be more easily prevented, 
or at least be made more difficult of procurement, than false returns of 
value. I think that where, presuming that the existing quantity of 
duty is to be levied in the future, a change from ad valorem to specific 
rates can be made, it would be desirable and a benefit to the revenue 
to make them. 

As to making such change apply to textile fabrics, I am inclined 
strongly to the opinion that it could not be done. These fabrics are so 
varied in weight, texture, price, and the uses to which they are put, and 
the list of them, under new commercial designation and new combina¬ 
tions of component materials, is being so constantly augmented, that I 
very much doubt the practicability of establishing specific rates calcu¬ 
lated to bring into the Treasury the existing quantity of duty. 

17. This question I cannot answer from any personal knowledge. If 
by “false reports” is meant the reports by appraisers of values below 
the true value, then I do not see how the repeal of the moiety clause 
would have even a tendency in that direction, though the modification 
of the law of 1803, respecting seizures of books and papers, it seems to 
me, might have the effect to increase such false reports. 

18. I do not think it would be practicable to have personal examina¬ 
tion of goods shipped from the larger consular districts in Europe. In¬ 
deed the same might be said of the smaller districts, even in Canada, 
unless the consular force was largely increased. I cannot tell in what 
consular districts officers could safely and surely ascertain and report 
true values of all goods shipped to the United States from their dis¬ 
tricts. There are some districts where, as regards the ruling or princi¬ 
pal articles of export therefrom, officers should be able, with some ex 
ertion, to get the true market values. At the same time a person known 
to the public in those districts, even as an officer of the United States 
consular service, must necessarily work at a great disadvantage in get¬ 
ting such information. As regards United States consular officers in 
Canada, with whom we have principally to deal, my experience has been 
that they do not exert themselves, or, at least, if they do, not success¬ 
fully, to procure and furnish information of any value to the customs. 
The certification of invoices by them seems to be a mere matter of form, 
and in ascertaining the true values of goods little if any consideration 
is given to the consular certificates at this port. It seems to be only 
necessary for a shipper to present an invoice at a majority of the con¬ 
sulates or agencies in Canada to have it certified. 

Judging the other United States consulates by those in Canada, I 
have come to have little confidence in them as a protection from fraud 
by undervaluation. While I do not feel myself competent to express 
an opinion as to what foreign governments would or would not be likely 
to do if American consuls made delays in examining values, &c., it 
seems to me that the United States have certainly the right to protect 
its revenue in its own way, and I do not think the foreign shipper would 
consider it to his interest to object. As regards fees of consuls in Lon¬ 
don, and England generally, all invoices therefrom received at this port 
are marked “Fees $2.50.” 

19. As to ascertainment of dutiable values I do not think it would be 
any safer, more useful to the revenue, or more just to importers that the 
executive power should have greater jurisdiction to interfere. The ju- 


576 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


dicial power, it seems to me, cannot well be extended, as they have 
all power now. The laws as they stand now seem to me to be as fair 
and equitable, both for the Government and the importers, as they can 
well be made. Both are protected by them; both have resort for final 
settlement of disputes as to value, &c., to the Federal courts. 

20. As to duty on wool, while I am not perfectly clear as to what is 
meant by a history of the several rates of duty on wool since 1860, if by 
“ history” is meant the moving causes for the various changes, the going 
back beyond the laws to get the objects and aims of the legislators in 
framing them, then I am not in a position to do it. This is not, and has 
never been, a wool-importing district. The appraiser informs me that 
there has not been imported direct into this district to exceed $200 worth 
of wool in ten years, and I am therefore not in a position to discuss this 
question intelligently. I can only give the laws as they were in 1860, 
and since, showing the changes in the tariff on wool, which I do below, 
viz: 

In 1860 the duty on all wool was 24 per cent, ad valorem (act March 
3, 1859, vol. 11, U. S. Stats., p. 192.) 

In 1861 the law was changed as follows, viz: All valued at place 
whence exported to the United States at 18 cents or less thau 18 cents 
per pound, at 5 per cent; exceeding 18 cents per pound, at 3 cents per 
pound; exceeding 24 cents per pound, at 9 cents per pound. 

Importations in other than ordinary condition to evade revenue or re¬ 
duce value below 18 cents per pound, dutiable at 9 cents per pound. 
(See act March 2, 1861, Yol. 12, U. S. Stats., pp. 183 and 196.) 

The law was changed again in 1861 as follows, viz: Wool, valued at 
12 cents or less per pound, at 3 cents per pound; exceeding 12 cents 
and not exceeding 24 cents per pound, at 6 cents per pound; wool, ex¬ 
ceeding 24 cents per pound and not exceeding 32 cents per pound, at 
10 cents per pound and 10 per cent.; exceeding 32 cents per pound, at 
12 cents per pound and 10 per cent.; condition changed to evade duty 
subjecting all to the highest rate, viz, 12 cents per pound and 10 per 
cent. (See act June 30, 1864, Yol. 13, U. S. Stats , p. 206.) 

See also second proviso, sec. 9, act of July 28, 1866, Yol. 14, U. S. 
Stats., p. 330, which provides, as regards long'combing or carpet wools 
costing less than 12 cents per pound, charges added to which would 
bring value above 12 cents per pound, an additional 1 cent per pound 
accrues. 

Up to this time no distinction seems to have been made in the 
tariff laws on wool except on the basis of value, but by the act of March 
2, 1867, Yol. 14, U. S. Stats., p. 559 et seq ., a new distinction in addition 
to that of value is made, to wit: the kinds of wool, classing merino aud 
kindred wools in one class, English long wools in another, and gouth 
American, Turkish, Egyptian, &c., in another, the classes by this 
law being: first, clothing wools, merino, &c.; second, combing wools, 
Leicester, Cotswold, and other long wools; third, carpet wools, South 
American, Turkish, Egyptian, &c., and the duties being fixed as follows : 

Class 1.—Yalue, excluding charges, 22 cents or less per pound, at 10 
cents and 11 per cent.; excluding 32 cents per pound at 12 cents aud 10 
per cent. If imported washed, double above rates. 

Class 2.—Yalue, excluding charges, 32 cents or less per pound, at 10 
cents and 11 per cent.; excluding 32 cents per pound, at 12 cents and 
10 per cent. 

Class 3.—Yalue 12 cents or less per pound, at 3 cents per pound. 
Exceeding 12 cents per pound, 6 cents per pound. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


577 


All wools imported scoured, dutiable at three times amount of duty to 
which subjected if unwashed. Condition changed to evade duty or re¬ 
duce value dutiable at twice the rate to which otherwise subject. 

By joint resolution March 22,1867, Canada long wools added to class 
2 (see U. S. Stats., vol. 15, p. 21). 

By act of June 6, 1872, U. S. Stats., vol. 17, p. 281, existing duties 
reduced 10 per cent. This act repealed and old rates restored by act 
March 3, 1875 (see sec. 4, Supplement Revised Statutes, vol. 1, p. 153). 

The act of March 3, 1883, vol. 22 U. S. Stats., p. 508, the last legisla¬ 
tion on this subject, preserves the same divisions into classes as former 
acts, and imposes duties on wool, as follows, viz: 

Class 1 .— Value 30 cents or less per pound, at 10 cents per pound; 
value exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound. Imported 
washed, double above duties. 

Class 2.—Value 30 cents or less per pound, at 10 cents per pound; 
value exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound. 

Class 3.—Value 12 cents or less per pound, 2£ cents per pound; value 
exceeding 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound. Imported scoured, 
all classes, duties three times the rates to which otherwise subject. 

As hereinbefore stated, there being no importations of wool at this 
port, I cannot give the workings of the law in reference thereto. 

21. While I have no personal knowledge of such practice, it is the 
general belief the practice does prevail at the port of New York of the 
payment of money by arriving passengers to inspectors of baggage, 
either to prevent absolutely or at least to hasten the examination of 
baggage. 

As to the adoption of any course to prevent this, I am free to say 1 
do not think it can be done. When the general traveling public, and 
more especially that class of Americans who cross the ocean (presum¬ 
ably the first class in intelligence) are educated up to a belief that in 
morals it is equally as wrong to tender as to accept a bribe, there may 
then be devised a method to prevent these corrupt practices. In my 
opinion the Government officers as a rule are as honest as the general 
public. The stream does not rise above its source. 

22. There can be fixed no rate of duty so low as to remove absolutely 
all inducement to smuggle, and in that sense there is no line below 
which the Government can surely protect. 

There are some rates of duty so high, however, as to offer great in¬ 
ducements to smugglers and dishonest shippers, the profits of whom 
make them powerful in evading the law. I do not believe the present 
rates are too high to preclude their collection in the main, and put the 
rates where you will there will still be dishonesty in the shippers ; those 
shippers who are dishonest now to make $1,000, will be equally dis¬ 
honest if the profits of their frauds amount to $500. 

23. I have no knowledge on this subject. 

24. This question, so far as it relates to this port, has been answered 
in other parts of this report. False returns have not, to my knowledge, 
been made to me, either of dutiable values or quantities. Should there 
be such I shall not be slow to inform the Department and take proper 
legal steps for the prosecution and punishment of the offender. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. LIVINGSTONE, Jr., 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


37 A 


578 


REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


PORT OF GALVESTON. 


No. 86. 

A. G. MALLOY- Appointed Collector February 28, 1881. 

Cus i om-House, Galveston, Tex., 

Collector’s Office , September 21, 1885. 

Sir: In compliance with circular of August 27, 1885, I have to sub¬ 
mit the following in reply to the inquiries: 

1. I am not in possession of any facts to warrant a statement that 
duties have not been levieil and collected as prescribed by law. 

2. There is no case within my knowledge where the full amount of 
duty has not been collected. 

3. By actual examination and measurement of a certain percentage 
of the goods of each invoice. 

4. I know of no collusion at this port between importer and entry 
clerk or deputy collector. 

5. Weighing or measuring on the wharf has been correct. 

6. The existing laws, if amended, would not probably reduce the con¬ 
troversies between officers and importers. I have no information rela¬ 
tive to suits peudiug in the cities mentioned. It might be proper to 
give suits where the United States is a party precedence in the courts, 
so far as practicable, without manifest injury to other litigants. I 
cannot see that any amendment to the law is necessary relative to in¬ 
terest. The present judicial system efficiently administered would sat¬ 
isfy beyond question the end desired. 

7. I have no personal knowledge on which to base a statement. 

8. Same as No. 7. 

9. Same as No. 7. 

10. No confusion or conflict of opinion has arisen at this port as to 
the fixing of dutiable values under the law. 

11. Probably not. 

12. It is believed the examiners or deput} 7 appraisers would be pri¬ 
marily responsible, as in the large ports it might be impracticable for 
the appraiser to personally examine and verify importations with in¬ 
voices. None of that special class are employed at this port, the col¬ 
lector acting as appraiser, assisted by a general clerk. 

13. Have no knowledge of facts to warrant statement. 

14. Same as No. 13. 

15. The employment of men of character and ability at adequate com¬ 
pensation would no doubt have the effect to reduce the number of cases 
of bribery said to occur at the great ports. 

16. An entire change from ad valorem to specific duties could not be 
made without placing many articles on the free list, such as machinery, 
works of art, toys, musical instruments, manufactures of leather, &c. 
1 think that specific rates could not be applied to many textile fabrics 
except on a basis of valuation, such as brocaded or embossed silks and 
similar fabrics, and if the rate of duty depended on valuation the same 
incentive to undervaluation would remain. Specific rates could, how¬ 
ever, be applied to many articles that now pay ad valorem duty with. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 579 


out changing the amount of duty collected on such articles, such as 
iron, cotton-ties, cement, brick, &c. 

17. I cannot state. 

18. I do not think it practicable in the large districts for consular 
officers to personally examine all articles; and if they were required, 
and failed to examine goods and invoices promptly, no doubt there 
would be complaints. The fee exacted appears noted on invoices, 
usually at 15 shillings, if the invoice be large or small. 

19. If after the production of evidence it became manifest that dutia¬ 
ble values as decided by the appraising department were erroneous, 
the executive and judicial powers should have authority to correct the 
error. 

20. No wool being imported at this port, I am unable to make a state¬ 
ment as to the history or influence the several rates of duty since 1860 
has exerted on the markets. 

21. I have heard that such practices do exist at the large ports, but 
have no proofs. The prosecution of both passenger and inspector might 
reduce the number of cases. 

22. There are some articles upon which, if the rate of duty was 
lowered, the incentive to smuggling would not be as active as it is at 
present. I would mention cigars and laces. 

23. Have no evidence as to the facts, but presume the same influences 
would prevail at all large ports. 

24. It is believed generally on account of the intercession of political 
influence. 

Very respectfullv, 

A. G. MALLOY, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


PORT OF MOBILE. 


No. 87. 


WILLTS G. CLARK—Appointed Collector July 14, 1885. 

Custom-House, Mobile, Ala., 

Collector’s Office , September 15, 1885. 

Sir : Your circular letter, dated August 27 and marked u confiden¬ 
tial,” was duly received, and I improve the earliest opportunity to reply. 
Nearly all the interrogatories propounded were evidently designed for 
the larger ports, and I would find no data in the business of this cus¬ 
toms district on which to base an intelligent opinion or afford informa¬ 
tion which would aid the purpose sought. I will, however, go through 
the questions seriatim , and answer where I can and so state where I 
cannot. 

1. I find no evidence that rates of duty have not been collected. 

2. I find no evidence that the full amount of duty prescribed by Con¬ 
gress on articles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates has 
not been collected. 




580 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


3. Imports of textile fabrics have for several years past been so light 
in this district that the invoiced measurement has been verified by 
actual measurement of the fabrics. 

4. There is no evidence of collusion here in the imports mentioned. 

5. There is no evidence, so far as I can learn, of false, incompetent, 
or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves at this port. 

Interrogatories 6 to 1G, inclusive, seem to pertain chiefly to New York 
and the large Atlantic ports, and doubtless any opinion on the impor¬ 
tant matters suggested is not expected from customs officers so far 
removed from such ports and without the proper information to form 
correct opinions thereupon. 

16. I am decidedly of the opinion that a change from ad valorem to 
specific rates would not be a benefit to the revenue, although it might 
possibly diminish, to some extent, opportunities for bribery. It appears 
to me that it would be exceedingly difficult to make specific duties, pro¬ 
vided the same amount of revenue is to be raised, bear as equitably 
and justly upon consumers as ad valorem rates, particularly with regard 
to textile fabrics which vary so materially in value. 

18. Of the matters embraced in this interrogatory I have not suffi¬ 
cient information to venture a reply, and do not suppose it is expected 
of a port of such limited foreign business as this. 

19. I cannot see that any evil could result to the revenues, or to the 
importers, if the jurisdiction of the executive or judiciary was enlarged 
as suggested, but on the contrary, can conceive of cases in which equity 
and justice might be subserved thereby. 

20 to 24. As these interrogatories pertain to the large ports, and 
mainly to Atlantic ports, I do not attempt a reply to them. 

Regretting that my brief experience in the office of collector and the 
limited scope afforded by the business of this port have allowed me to 
give only such restricted and imperfect response to the important ques¬ 
tions submitted in the circular under review, whose far-reaching signifi¬ 
cance and value I appreciate, 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIS Gr. CLARK, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. 


PORT OF NEW ORLEANS. 


No. 88. 

B. F. JONAS—Appointed Collector July 18, 1885. 

Custom-House, New Orleans, La., 

Collector’s Office, September 3, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of your confidential circular of August 27, and 
regret that in my answer I will be able to give you but little informa¬ 
tion of interest or value, because of my short official tenure and limited 
experience during this period of summer dullness and business inactiv- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 581 


ity. This office (with the exception of its partisan interference in pol¬ 
itics) has been run fairly well, and no complaints have as yet reached 
me of mismanagement or unjust discrimination. I have as yet heard 
no complaints, and have discovered no evidence of fraud or collusion 
between importers and collecting or inspecting officers in entering, 
falsely invoicing, or sampling merchandise, or in any way defrauding 
the Government of its proper revenue. Many of the subordinate offi¬ 
cers do not possess my confidence to any great degree, but the chiefs 
are men of my selection, in whom I have confidence, and I think I can 
keep matters perfectly straight until, through the civil service process, I 
can secure a thoroughly competent and reliable service. I have heard 
no complaint of false or incompetent weighing or measuring on the 
wharves. 

I think necessity exists for a new tribunal to try judicially questions 
growing out of external or internal taxation, &c., as suggested in your 
sixth iuterrogatory. The Federal courts at present are overcrowded, 
and these cases, which require immediate consideration, are greatly 
delayed. I should think the examiner and deputy appraiser chiefly 
responsible for a false return of value to the collector. The former re¬ 
ceives (at this port) $1,800 per annum, the latter $2,500. While I know 
nothing of the matters inquired of in the thirteenth and fourteenth in¬ 
terrogatories as having actually occurred, I can say that nothing of the 
kind could be done without guilty knowledge and connivance on the 
part of Treasury or customs officials. The only guard against such oc¬ 
currences is to be found in stringent laws for their punishment when 
detected, and in the careful selection of subordinate officers of good 
character and reputation. 1 have found many in office of thoroughly 
bad reputation, whom I am getting rid of as rapidly as possible. 

I would be inclined to think myself that a change from ad valorem to 
specific rates would be a benefit to the revenue, and help to diminish 
and guard against fraud, but my deputy collector, a gentleman of large 
experience in the customs service, is of opinion that a mixed tariff is a 
necessity. I am satisfied that the eighteenth interrogatory can be 
answered in the negative. What is difficult to do at the home port 
would be impossible abroad. A fee of $2.50 is exacted by our consuls 
abroad for certifying invoices, &c. I think in answer to the nineteenth 
interrogatory, that it would be safe and useful to the revenues, and just 
to importers, that the judicial powers should have greater jurisdiction 
to entertain appeals from and correct the rulings of collectors and other 
Treasury officials in questions of the dutiable value and rates of duty 
imposed upon merchandise. 

There is no wool received at this port, and I can furnish you with no 
statement in answer to the twentieth interrogatory. 

I am informed that the custom referred to in the twenty-first inter¬ 
rogatory does not exist at this port. It can only be prevented by strict 
supervision, and the appointment of honest officers. 

I am, very respectfully, 

’ B. F. JONAS, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


582 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 89. 


R. SINNOTT—Appointed Surveyor January 28, 1885. 

Custom-House, New Orleans. La., 

Surveyors Office , October 3, 1885. 

Sir: The printed letter from your office, dated August 27, 1885, 
marked “strictly confidential,” was received in due time, and every 
effort has been made to prepare a reply thereto. The short time I have 
been in office, the amount of work involved in organizing my depart 
merit, with a limited and inadequate working force, both clerical and 
of day and night inspectors, has prevented an earlier reply. I lind 
myself unable, even at this late day, to answer so fully and intelligently 
as the importance of the information sought demands, or as I would be 
glad to do. Most of the queries can be, and doubtless will be, fully 
answered by the officers in charge of the departments to which they 
speedaly refer. 

As close an investigation as I have been able to make of the practices 
of former officials in this custom-house has failed to show any evidences 
of fraud or collusion between importers and the customs officers at this 
port. There is no evidence of “false or inadequate weighing.’* 

I have been at some pains to obtain the views of prominent importers 
on the sixteenth query. It is generally believed that a change from ad 
valorem to specific rates would be a benefit to the revenue, and the 
change would help to diminish a tendency to bribery, and “specific 
rates can be applied to all textile fabrics.” I fully concur in these 
views. 

While there is nothing to evidence illegal practices on the part of 
officials of this custom-house, yet it is believed by many in interest that 
in some way discriminations have been made against this port and in 
favor of New York, either by the officials here or at the latter port. 
These discriminations are mainly attributable to the difference in ap¬ 
praisement of goods at the two places. Merchants here who were once 
large importers direct now import through New York, where it is claimed 
that goods of the same class are appraised from 12£ to 25 per cent, lower 
than here. It might be well to make a more thorough inquiry as to these 
statements, and, if found true, some plan of forcing a uniform mode of 
appraisement should be adopted. If these differences actually exist at 
different ports it seems to argue in favor of adopting specific rates on all 
goods. 

1 think it would be safe to the revenue and eminently just to import¬ 
ers to give either the executive or judicial powers greater jurisdiction 
in supervising or revising the ascertainment of the dutiable value on 
goods valued by the appraisers, as suggested in the nineteenth ques¬ 
tion of your letter. The mode of appeal should, as much as possible, 
prevent vexatious delays to importers. 

I have attempted in this to reply only to questions Nos. 4, 5,10, and 
19, as coming more immediately under my duties. The other questions, 
for the reasons already stated, and for the want of information on the 
subjects referred to, I am unable to answer satisfactorily either to you 
or to myself. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


583 


In reply to questions addressed by me to importers on these subjects 
I was answered by each “that similar queries had been answered in 
letters to the collector,” which I suppose have been forwarded. 

Very respectfully, 

R. SINNOTT, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Dan’l Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


No. 90. 

HENRY P. IvERNOCHAN—Appointed Naval Officer May 11, 1885. 

Port of New Orleans, La., 

Naval Office , September 3, 1885. 

Sir : I am in receipt of circular letter from the Department dated 
August 27, 1885, and marked “ strictly confidential,” and have the honor 
to reply to the queries therein, seriatim, as follows : 

1. None to my knowledge. 

2. None to my knowledge. 

3. By actual examination and measurement in the appraiser’s depart¬ 
ment, 1 believe. 

4. None to my knowledge. 

5. None to my knowledge. 

6. Does not seem to refer to this port. 

7. Does not seem to refer to this port. 

8. Does not seem to refer to this port. 

9. 1 have no information on this subject. 

11). I have no information on this subject. 

11. I have no information on this subject. 

12. The examiner. I should suppose $1,800 per annum. I think not. 

13. None to my knowledge. 

14. I have no information on this subject. 

15. I have no information on this subject. 

16. I have not been long enough in the service to venture an opinion. 

17. Same answer as above. 

18. I should not think this practicable. The consular fees in London 
and other English ports, as shown by the invoices themselves, appear 
to be 15 shillings or $2.50 per invoice. 

19. I have not been a sufficient time in charge of office to be able to 
formulate an opinion upon this point. 

20. There is so little wool imported through this port that the desired 
information seems hardly available. 

21. If practiced at this port, such practice has not come to my knowl¬ 
edge. 

22. I have no information on this point. 

23. I have no information on this point. 

24. If practiced here it has not been brought to my knowledge. 

Very respectfully, 

HENRY P. KERNOCHAN, 

Naval Officer. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , I). C. 



584 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 91. 


A. H. LEONARD—Appointed U. S. District Atttorney June 15,1878. 


United States Attorney’s Office, 

Eastern District of Louisiana, 

New Orleans . September 28, 1885. 


Sir: In reply to the sixth query of your confidential circular 1 will 
state, that there are three suits of the character referred to pending iu 
this district. Two of them were removed from the State court in May 
last to the United States court, and the third, which was recently in¬ 
stituted, will be removed. The question involved in them is whether 
the cost of the packages in which goods are imported can legally be 
added to the dutiable value of the goods. 

In my opinion there is no necessity here for a new tribunal to try 
judicially cases of the nature mentioned. There is but little delay in 
disposing of them in court. 

In this connection I would ask your attention to the case of United 
States vs. Spanish brig Purissima Concepcion on appeal from the circuit 
court of this district to the ensuing term of the supreme court. The 
case presents two important questions: (1) Whether when goods are 
irregularly imported the burden of proof is on the master or consignee 
to show that there was no fraudulent intent, or whether the burden is 
on the United States to prove that the intention was fraudulent; (2) 
whether the expression “ actual intention to defraud,” as used in the six¬ 
teenth section of the act of June 22,1874, is to be construed as limited to 
acts which cause a pecuniary loss to the United States, or whether it 
includes all acts of deceit which have the effect of defeating or evading 
any requirement of the law, although no pecuniary loss may result. 

Yery respectfully, 


A. H. LEONARD, 

United States Attorney. 


PORT OF NEW YORK. 


No. 92. 

EDWARD L. HEDDEN—Appointed Collector June 29, 1885. 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collectors Office, October 10, 1885. 

Sir : In response to the several questions propounded in the confi¬ 
dential circular addressed to officers of the customs, a copy of which 
has been sent to me, I have the honor to answer the same to the extent 
of my knowledge and belief, at the same time remarking that the lim¬ 
ited time during which I have held the office of collector of customs at 
this port renders it impracticable to set forth as fully as I should desire 
such answers as a longer experience would justify, and to several of 
the questions as noted I most respectfully refer to those departments of 
the service to which they especially and particularly refer, and I have 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 585 


directed the several deputies and others to whom the circular has been 
sent to give the fullest particulars withiu their knowledge on the ques¬ 
tions submitted. • 

1. I have no knowledge or information that duties have not been 
collected in accordance with the laws with reference to the distinction 
between rates of duty and dutiable values. 

2. I am not aware that the full amount of duty has not been col¬ 
lected on articles paying purely specific duties, except that the ascer¬ 
tainment,thereof is open to criticism in many cases, especially in weights 
and tares, to which I shall refer more particularly in answer to other 
questions bearing upon the same subject. 

3. Invoice measurements of textile fabrics are presumably verified 
by the appraisers, but this is probably only the case so far as the par¬ 
ticular package ordered for an examination may be taken while the 
package is in the custody of the appraisers. In all cases of specific 
duties the weights or measures are ascertained by actual weights and 
tares or measures by officers appointed for those duties. Where ad 
valorem duties are prescribed, it would seem quite as important that the 
quantities described in the invoice as textile fabics be ascertained, in 
order that the proper amount of duty should be collected, as in the case 
of goods to be weighed or gauged. Considering the very large per¬ 
centage of duties collected on textile fabrics, there should be a more 
thorough system to ascertain or verify the measurements of such in¬ 
voices, and in the absence of actual taking of such measurements great 
frauds on the revenue are not only possible but of probable frequent 
occurrence, and undetected for want of actual measurement. I have 
at present under investigation an importation of silk goods suspected 
of being undermeasured. 

An experimental remedy would be to order a greater number of 
packages to the appraisers, with orders to verify the measurement of 
entire contents, and I consider that the additional force required would 
more than justify the expense. Should under measurement be detected 
as of frequent occurrence, nothing less than the thorough examination 
and measurement of entire invoices would remedy the matter, some¬ 
what after the English system. 

4. Since the adoption of the present system of passing import entries 
there is no evidence of any collusion between the importer or his agents 
and officer of the customs, and I consider that it is practically improb¬ 
able that such collusion can occur. It is, of course, possible to occur, 
but only through the co-operation of several persons. The present 
system of distributing the entries among the several deputies is a check 
upon any collusion, and has worked so far to the satisfaction of the 
several collectors, my predecessors. Constant vigilance is exercised, 
however, in this matter, and the deputy collector of the fifth division 
informs me that he does not consider any modification of the present 
system necessary in the absence of any apparent requirement therefor. 

5. Since my accession to office, almost my first attention was given 
to the probability of there being not only great looseness and irregu¬ 
larity in the weigher’s department, and evidence was easily accessible 
and obtained of fraudulent returns of goods certified as having been 
weighed by United States weighers that never had been on their scales, 
but the weights had been taken wholesale from the books of city 
weighers appointed by importers, a practice which has been of frequent 
occurrence. Other instances where goods having been delivered before 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


586 


weighing, the weights had been guessed at and entered in the dock-books 
and so returned. I have no doubt that such practices have been of 
• common occurrence, and the surveyor has been investigating the 
matter, and is giving it his almost daily attention, with one result, 
already of notorious application, in the removal of Weigher Bacon, in 
the Brooklyn district. Nothing less than the removal of every weigher 
under this system will remedy the matter, and the appointment of more 
honest and competent men in their place. 

I have just had occasion to remove the measurer of marble, wood, &c., 
for gross inefficiency in his department, who has occupied the position 
for many years to the detriment of the service and just complaint of 
importers. 

The subject of tares is also receiving my attention, as I am satisfied 
that very grave abuses exist in this relation, and instead of the actual 
tares required by law invoice tare has been accepted by weighers from 
the importer without verification, but no doubt under improper in¬ 
centives. 

6. This question involves a discussion of almost the entire tariff 
system. The differences between importers and collectors, both as to 
rates of duty and classification, have increased to a great extent since 
the last tariff became a law, involving as it did great chauges in the 
assessment of duties, especially in abolishing all charges as part of the 
dutiable value, and the addition of disputed package-charges to make 
market value. The decision of Judge Wallace, in the carton case, 
has disposed of that question, without, however, removing the friction, 
and I still have disagreements between the general and merchant ap¬ 
praisers referred to me on the same question, the importers seeming to 
disregard the decision, and calling for reappraisements where the cost 
of the carton is added to make “market value.” 

My own opinion is that market value, as necessarily construed under 
the law , often works great injustice to the merchant, and in many in¬ 
stances is impossible to verify with any sort of correctness, and, there¬ 
fore, vague, and almost guess-work. 

The remedy most applicable is the adoption of specific duties on 
every article where practicable. 

Regarding the number of suits pending and their class, I have not 
sufficient information at hand to answer in this respect. So far as I can 
learn, the number of suits pending does not involve distinct or very 
many different principles. The practice, as I understand it, is to have 
a test suit to dispose of any given question involved, and the calendar 
of such suits, with sufficient rapidity, and I do not consider that any 
new tribunal is necessary. 

Regarding the matter of accrued interests on judgments, I understand 
that it is the practice of the courts to determine the question of interest 
in such cases when raised by the district attorney. 

7, 8, 9.—I cannot answer these questions, except in a general way to 
express my belief that the duties required by law, and the method of 
their collection, is open to great improvement by the selection of more 
intelligent and competent officers, with especial reference to the qual¬ 
ifications required in the several departments. Whether the service 
can secure the necessary expert knowledge required, especially as ex¬ 
aminers in the appraiser’s department, for the limited compensation 
of such officers, I very much doubt. Hence, the duty of such officers— 
in my opinion of the very first importance —is performed very frequently 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 587 


in an unskilful and perfunctory manner, often through ignorance or 
indolence, o*r both, and without any guilty intent , or even perhaps 
neglect ; yet the service is for that reason not performed as faithfully ngr 
ns effectually as a more expert class of officials would render, if the sal¬ 
aries of examiners should be sufficient to command the very best class 
of men for this service, the pivot, as it were, of the revenue to be col¬ 
lected. 

10, 11.—In answering these questions it is only necessary to refer to 
the many recent cases of u confusion and doubt and conflict of opinion” 
regarding the construction of several of the clauses of the last tariff, 
especially as to the question of what constitutes market value, as before 
mentioned. jSTotably in cotton embroideries, as well as many other 
articles of foreign manufacture, it is claimed that the dutiable value 
shall be estimated at the cost of production. While this method has 
the sanction of law, (see sections 7 and 9, tariff of March 3, 1883,) it 
works a great injustice to the merchant who buys in the foreign market 
the same article, paying the “market value” thereof, which, on the 
newest and most attractive style of goods, command a very large profit 
to the manufacturer and dealer in such foreign markets, while at the 
same time similar goods are consigned to our markets and the invoices 
presented for entry at cost as stated , thus putting a bona fide purchaser 
abroad at a great disadvantage on entering his invoices of similar goods 
in competition. Hence, the numerous reappraisements called for in 
several classes of merchandise where this irritating question of 4 ‘ market 
value” is constantly arising, and is in the nature of an u irrepressible 
conflict” under the ad valorem system. 

An average estimate of the percentage of undervaluation in any 
year or series of years, or the identification of the invoices, would, it 
seems to me, be almost impossible at this time, and more or less un¬ 
reliable. 

12. Primarily the examiner is, in my opinion, chiefly responsible 
for a false return of value. The salary of the appraiser is fixed by 
section 2729, Revised Statutes, at $4,000 per annum ; assistant appraiser, 
(section 2731, Revised Statutes,) at $3,000 per annum; and examiners, 
(section 2745, Revised Statutes,) not to exceed $2,500 per annum. 

I find that there are sixty-eight examiners in all, receiving salaries 
as follows; Seven, at $1,200 per annum each ; thirty-two, at $1,800 per 
annum each; eight, at $2,000 per annum each; and twenty-one, at 
$2,500 per annum each; there being eight vacancies at present exist¬ 
ing among all these classes, and, as I have before remarked, no very 
high standard of expert knowledge, so needful to the appraiser’s de¬ 
partment, can be obtained for such compensation. 

The present appraiser is, both ordinarily and in fact, one who in¬ 
telligently deals with any question which may be raised as to values 
reported by the examiners and assistant appraisers, which is a great 
deal more than can be said of some of his predecessors. 

1.3, 14, 15.—I am not aware that false evidence of foreign values has 
been traped to foreign consuls or other Government officials. 

16. I have for many years advocated the adoption of specific duties 
on every article imported, where practicable, as well for the diminished 
opportunity for fraud and the more economical collection of the revenue. 
TJnder any system, of course, fraud is possible and probable, requiring 
constant vigilance in its detection. I am of the opinion that so long as 
we must collect revenue upon imports, the system should be simplified 


588 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


by the adoption of specific duties and increasing the free-list , and confin¬ 
ing the tariff of duties to as few articles as possible to yield a sufficient 
amount of revenue, and thereby reduce the number of employes. 
Specific duties would, in my opinion, increase the revenue by diminish¬ 
ing the extensive undervaluations. The quantities of goods imported 
are easily ascertained, while the values are difficult to establish as a basis 
for ad valorem duties. Absolute and exact facts are better than change¬ 
able values. 

17. I have no knowledge sufficient to answer this question. I am of 
the opinion that the repeal of the “moiety law” has deprived the Gov¬ 
ernment of millions of dollars of revenue, and one of the direct influ¬ 
ences to cause undervaluations. The law had some obnoxious features, 
which, in the hands of venal officers, made it odious to American citi¬ 
zens ; but any law of the kind must severely deal with fraud; but its 
terms, however severe, need have no terrors for the innocent. A moiety 
law which shall be the incentive to honesty, rather than a premium on 
fraud, would not be so unpopular as to cause serious objection to the 
examination or even seizure of books and papers. 

18. I am of the opinion that it would be entirely practicable for con¬ 
sular agents, if selected for their commercial knowledge or experience, 
to verify the correctness of invoiced values of at least a majority of 
articles, especially leading staples, in the principal markets of the 
world. Consular fees for certifying invoices are the equivalent of $2.50 
for each. 

19. This question I cannot satisfactorily answer, from the limited 
experience during my few months of office. 

20. I have been unable to procure a suitable analysis of the history 
of the tariff on wool since 1860. 

21. The practice of payment of money by arriving passengers to in¬ 
spectors is generally believed to prevail, and always has j)revailed. 
The recent instructions issued by the honorable Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury will, no doubt, have an excellent effect in limiting the practice. 

22. 23, 24.—I have no knowledge, at present, on these questions. 

The confidential circular is herewith returned. 

Very respectfully, 

E. L. HEDDEN, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 93. 

Additional to Collector Hedden. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , I). <7., September 19, 1885. 

Dear Sir: I am not receiving from some of the examiners distinct 
replies to Question 12 of the series of questions sent out by this Depart¬ 
ment. Will you see to it that the examiners answer this question fully, 
freely , and promptly. 

Respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Edward L. Hedden, Esq., 

Collector of Customs , New York. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 589 


No. 94. 

JOSEPH TRELOAR—Appointed Chief Clerk November 24, 1855. 

Custom-House, New York, 

Collectors Office , September 18, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the 5th instant, enclosing a copy of your circular letter, in which are 
propounded twenty-four questions as to the operation of the tariff laws. 

First question .—As to whether the rates of duty imposed by the tariff 
have been collected, I answer that, accepting the interpretation of the 
law as given from time to time by the courts and by the Treasury De¬ 
partment, and assuming that the United States appraiser has*not erred 
as to the value where the rate is fixed by the value of a specific 
quantity. I am unaware of failure to collect the proper rate of duty. 
Eight here I ask what advantage is there in a tariff of rates regulated 
by value over purely ad valorem duties? I answer that there is no ad¬ 
vantage; on the contrary, it tends, if anything, to complicate the func¬ 
tions of the customs officers; and the imposition of duties at rates 
governed by the number of threads to the square inch, as in cottons, 
is still worse. 

Second question .—As to whether the full amount of duties, where they 
are purely specific rates, have been collected, I answer that cases have 
been, I believe, discovered where the true quantity has been greater 
than that on which duties were collected; but the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment has held that, after the duties have been liquidated and the goods 
have passed from the custody of the Government, the entry cannot be 
opened for the assessment of additional duties on proof other than the 
customs officers’ returns. (Bee Synopsis, 4588.) 

Third question .—This question, which relates to the testing of invoice 
measurements of textile fabrics, is one for the appraiser to answer. It 
is, of course, of the first importance to the safety of the revenue. 

Fourth question .—As to the possibility of collusion between the im¬ 
porter and the deputy collector to send to the appraiser for examination 
a bogus or false package, I answer that, while there is a possibility, 
there is not a probability of such collusion under the present practice 
at this port. The importer does not know to which of the many depu¬ 
ties his entry will go for designation of the package unless informed 
by the distributer who apportions the entries by numbers among the 
several deputies, and that is not probable. No intimation of such an 
occurrence has reached me. 

Fifth question .—As to inaccurate weighing or measuring on the 
wharves, I refer to my answer to the second question, and state, further, 
that this office has received numerous complaints from importers of 
excessive weights and gauge returned by the customs officers, but my 
memory fails to recall a single notification that the quantity as returned 
by the officer was less than the actual quantity. This would seem to 
imply that mistakes all run one way! But do they? I think not. 

Sixth question .—In respect to suits brought against collectors by im 
porters for recovery of alleged excessive duties, I transmit herewith 
a copy (marked “A”) of my communication on the subject, addressed 
- to Mr. Ex-Secretary Windom, under date of July 10, 1881. If any in¬ 
terest shall be allowed on judgments obtained in such suits, why 


590 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


should it not be at a low rate; and why should not one and the same 
appropriation be made for the principal and interest? 

I raise the question as to the allowance of any interest in such cases, 
for the reason that it is natural to assume that the importer has real¬ 
ized from the consumer the duties actually paid by a price based 
thereon; and if the importer recovers judgment, the consumer, whose 
money has gone into the National Treasury, pays again, and as a re 
suit the importer and his “claim agent” are enriched at the expense 
of the consumer and the Government to the amount of the judgment. 
Why, then, should interest, which oftentimes amounts to more than 
the principal, be allowed in such cases? But a well-considered, clear, 
and comprehensive tariff would more than anything else lesson the 
number o£ such suits. 

Seventh question .—Referring to the “recent investigations,” the in¬ 
quiry is made on what articles has the Government failed to collect 
the “full amount of duty?” Although I have no evidence on which 
I can put my hands, I have gathered from my intercourse with offi¬ 
cials that the undervaluations which have been established by ap¬ 
praisement and reappraisement are of silks and other costly fabrics, 
with perhaps some few lines of other goods. 

Eighth question. —How have such undervaluations come about? By 
venturesome experiments of enterprising importers, (not to use harsher 
terms,) the probable want of full knowledge of the market value of the 
many kinds of merchandise by the appraising officers, and in some 
cases by cupidity on the part of some of those officers. 

Ninth question .—How long have such false valuations been in opera¬ 
tion ; and what evidence is there to sustain the Treasury and consular 
agents as against the official appraisements? Such false valuations 
have been, I believe, since there has been a tariff, and, I doubt not, will 
continue so long as we have a tariff, for the old adage that “every 
man’s hand is against the tax-gatherer” is as true to-day as ever it 
was. 

The special agents being known to the community as detectives, 
competing importers naturally go to them with statements, which other¬ 
wise would probably be made to the collector, that other importers 
dealing in the same line of goods are underselling them at prices 
which give suspicion to evasion of the duties, and in this the special 
agent weaves his case. 

Tenth question .—As to whether there has been any conflict of opinion 
in the appraiser’s department as to the elements of dutiable value, I 
leave for the appraiser to answer. 

Eleventh question .—As to an estimate of the percentages of under¬ 
valuations, I also leave for the appraiser. 

Twelfth question .—As to which of the appraising officers are primar¬ 
ily and chiefly responsible for undervaluations, if responsibility attach, 
it is chiefly with the examiner and assistant appraiser. The statute 
provides that the salary of assistant appraisers at this port shall be 
$3,000 per annum, and that that of examiner shall not exceed $2,500 
per annum. The responsibilities of the positions warrant, in my judg¬ 
ment, salaries of $5,000 and $4,000, respectively, for these officers. The 
duties of the appraiser are far from being perfunctory; mooted ques¬ 
tions are constantly before him. Upon no officer of the customs does 
more varied and greater labors devolve, and upon no one’s intelligence 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 591 


and integrity does the safety of the revenue depend more. His salary 
is $4,000 per annum, and it should be at least double that sum. 

Thirteenth question. —I am unaware of the connivance of Government 
officials in the presentation to the appraiser of false evidence of foreign 
values. 

Fourteenth question.— Prosecutions have been had against customs 
officers as parties to fraudulent undervaluations, but I have failed to 
learn that they have been carried to conviction. 

Fifteenth question.— Judging by the past, I apprehend that danger to 
the revenue from bribery will not cease. Conviction in court in such 
cases is undoubtedly difficult, for the reason that the required testimony 
cannot be given by one party or the other without criminating himself. 

Sixteenth question .—As to whether a change from ad valorem rates 
to specific rates would be beneficial to the revenue, and as to whether 
specific rates can be applied to all textile fabrics. Of course specific 
rates would simplify the ascertainment and collection of the imposts; 
and while it may “diminish a tendency to bribery,” I do not see that it 
would close the door to that vicious evil, for the quantities may be 
falsely stated. Specific rates can certainly ‘ ; be applied to all textile 
fabrics,” but would it be just to tax the inferior article at the same rate 
as the superior article? Would it not be' anti democratic in discrimi¬ 
nating against the poor man? Some will say that it will encourage’ 
the importation of the best goods. Suppose it does ; what advantage 
is that to the consumer who cannot- afford to buy them? The benefit 
would be to the rich and not to the poor! 

The substitution of specific rates for ad valorem when practicable is 
desirable. It seems that all imported commodities should be taxed 
proportionately to their worth. 

Seventeenth question .—As to the effect of the anti-moiety law of June 
22, 1874. It has increased the number of entries by proforma invoices, 
in many of which the value has been understated. In some instances 
where the proforma invoice values have been too low, the appraiser 
has made additions thereto, while in others he has not; but of the 
causes of the omission I am not informed. Some of such omissions 
were discovered and cured, but I am not prepared to say that none 
have passed undiscovered. 

The collector called attention to this danger in his letter of April 8, 
1882, a copy of which is transmitted herewith, marked “B.” 

Experiments by importers dangerous to the revenue by such invoices\ 
are encouraged by the Attorney-General’s opinion that the additional 1 
(penal) duty of 20 cent, ad valorem does not attach for undervaluations | 
in entries made on such invoices. In this connection, I forward here¬ 
with (marked “C”) a copy of a memorandum made by me, under date 
of June 3, 1874, when this anti-moiety law was submitted to this office 
in the shape of a bill. Just look at the sixteenth section, which puts j 
the onus prohandi on the Government of proving “an actual intention i 
to defraud the United States.” How can an intention to defraud be ! 
proven short of a plea of guilty? This provision should be repealed, 1 
and the seventy-first section of the organic act of 1799, which put the j 
onus prohandi on the claimant, substituted therefor. 

Eighteenth question. —As to the practicability of United States consuls 
personally examining goods and verifying values. This, I am per¬ 
suaded, would lead to vexatious delays and complaints. It was in a 
degree tried after the passage of the act of March 3, 1863, (vol. 12 




592 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Stat., p. 737.) I think it was when the consuls refused to certify when 
they suspected undervaluation therein, and also refused to certify in¬ 
voices after the goods had been shipped. The result was instructions 
to consuls to certify invoices after as well as before shipment, and to 
notify collectors when, in their (the consuls 7 ) judgment, the invoices 
are undervalued. (But see section 1715, Revised Statutes.) 

Nineteenth question .—The finality of appraisements without the inter¬ 
ference of the (‘executive or the judicial powers? 77 

In my judgment, any further appeal than that provided in section 
2930, Revised Statutes, would tend to complicate and prolong disputes 
and lead to no good. Many of the complaints, if not the great bulk of 
them recently made, would, I am convinced, have been avoided had 
the Department held originally under the act of 1883, as you have said, 
that the questions as to vffiether certain so-called charges are elements 
of market value are for the appraiser to determine. 

Twentieth question. —As to the history of the several tariffs on wool, 
I leave for the appraiser and others to answer, saying for myself simply 
that the wisdom of Compound duties has never been manifest to me. 

Twenty-first question .—As to the payment of moneys by arriving pas¬ 
sengers to inspectors of the customs, I answer that it is generally believed 
that the practice has existed for many years. How can it be prevented ? 
T>y espionage, such as is possible by having baggage examined at one 
stated place, and by the sure dismissal and prosecution of the offend¬ 
ing parties. By the way, I know of no law for the examination of bag¬ 
gage on the steamers 7 wharves. It is permitted by Treasury regula¬ 
tions only as a convenience to passengers. 

Twenty-second question .—My observation has been that frauds on the 
revenue .by smuggling and otherwise are mostly practised on costly 
goods, such as diamonds, jewelry, and silks and satins. Diamonds are 
so easily smuggled, I am of opinion that it would be wise to put them 
on the “free-list. 77 

Twenty-third question .—Referring, as it does, to other ports than New 
York, I pass it. 

Twenty-fourth question .—As to the prosecution of persons, including 
officials, concerned in undervaluations, I can recall none that was had 
for undervaluation, simple and pure, other than suits for the forfeiture 
of the goods in the proceeds of which some one is, as a rule, interested 
as informer or seizing officer. It has often occurred to me that in such 
cases the appraising officers should be called upon to explain their 
delinquency, and that if found to be with a guilty knowledge, they 
should be prosecuted, and if from incompetency, they should leave the 
service. 

Under any system of taxation, the safety of the Government revenue 
must, in the main, rest upon the expert knowledge and integrity of its 
officials. 

Submitting the foregoing, I am, with high respect, your obedient 
servant, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


JOSEPH TRELOAR, 
thief Clerk of the Customs. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 593 


[Enclosure. ] 

A. 

Custom-House, Nev York, 
Collector’s Office , July 10, 1881. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a printed copy 
of your letter of the 15th ultimo, relative to the present method of dis¬ 
posing of disputed questions under the tariff laws. 

It has occurred to me that many of the questions would be avoided 
if the suggestion of the late assistant collector at this port to a commit¬ 
tee of Congress were heeded, and that was, referring to the tariff 
schedule on cottons, “stop taking duties by the microscope. 77 Many 
more would be cut short, in all probability, if, after they were presented 
to the head of the Treasury, they were made the subject of special 
reports to Congress for further legislation. 

Had such course been pursued, the Treasury might not have been 
depleted of millions of dollars for the benefit of so-called “clairn- 
agenti, 77 as in what are known as the “fruit 77 and “silk-ribbon 77 cases. 
The United States appraiser’s return as to the character or nature of 
imported merchandise has been decided by the highest tribunal in the 
land to be “ final and conclusive.” (See 24 Howard’s Eeports, page 
525.) There is no law for an appeal from such return. Perhaps it 
would be well to provide by law for an appeal from the local appraiser’s 
return as to the nature of merchandise (now entertained by the Treas¬ 
ury Department) to a board of general appraisers consisting, say, of 
three members, to be designated from time to time by the Secretary 
of the Treasury, who should also have power to direct as to the time 
and places at which the board shall sit. The board to examine the 
merchandise for themselves^ and to call for such persons and papers 
as they may need, positively excluding , however, from their proceedings 
counsellors learned in the law who shall seek to appear for the appellants. 
The statute to declare the decision of a majority of such board “ final 
and conclusive 77 as to the nature of the merchandise. Would not such 
a board be better qualified by the character of their official functions 
than the collector can be to decide as to the market values where the gen¬ 
eral appraiser and merchant appraiser disagree? Why not amend sec¬ 
tion 2930, Revised Statutes, by substituting the board for the collector? 
The decisions of the board on appeals, if made final and promulgated to 
the officers of the customs at the several ports for their information 
and guidance, would leave only questions as to the legality of the 
proceedings of the board and as to the rates of duty chargeable. With 
the nature of the merchandise finally determined, there would be little, 
if any, room for doubt as to the correct rates of duty under the tariff; and 
such questions as may arise in regard thereto will, of course, call for inter¬ 
pretations of the language of the statute, which properly belong to 
the courts. The difficulties connected with the assessment of duties 
on sugar are easily cured by the substitution of ad valorem duties for 
the present rates according to the Dutch standard, which it has been 
demonstrated is impracticable. A clear and comprehensive law, which 
shall designate a time before and after which it shall not be competent 
to protest and appeal against the duties exacted, would go far to secure 
the object aimed at in your letter. 

38 a 



594 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The present law, as it has been construed, does not serve the pur¬ 
pose for which it is believed it was intended, viz., the filing of protest 
after liquidation of the duties, whether the entry be for consumption 
or for warehousing. There is no liquidation known to the custom¬ 
house of a “withdrawal entry . 77 If the rate of duty is by authority 
changed before the goods are withdrawn, the original warehousing 
entry is necessarily reliquidated, and that, and not the withdrawal, is 
the liquidation contemplated by the statute; and the acceptance of pro¬ 
tests before liquidation tends to swell the great number of such docu¬ 
ments without ground therefor. 

Respectfully submitted. 

JOSEPH TRELOAR. 

Hon. William Windom, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


[Enclosure. ] 


B. 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collector’s Office , April 8 , 1882. 

Sir : It would be a dereliction of duty on my part not to bring to 
your attention the fact, which is daily made evident to this office, that 
the revenue is endangered by entry of imported merchandise by so- 
called proforma invoices, which do not represent the true value. 

Taking advantage of the decisions of your honorable predecessor of 
May 23, 1879, (Synopsis, 4025,) based on the opinion of the Attorney- 
General, (see Synopsis, 4149,) and October 6 , 1879, (Synopsis, 4234,) 
that the additional (penal) duty provided by section 2900, Revised 
Statutes, for undervaluation in the entry does not accrue on entries 
made on such invoices, many importers invariably make pro forma in¬ 
voices far below the true market value. For illustration : Entry No. 
24788 was made in February for “650 bags heads cabbage 77 by pro 
forma invoice No. 13561, in which the value is given as “crowns, 
2, 000 , 77 and the only addition made thereto by the United States ap¬ 
praiser was “shipping charges, 80 crowns ,* 77 but the consular invoice 
subsequently produced is for 4,000 crowns, just double the amount 
stated in the pro forma invoice. Pro forma invoice No. 13153, last 
month’s series, is for “5 cases cottons, value £150, 77 entered as dutiable 
at 35 per cent., while the consular invoice is for “worsted dress-goods, 
value £384, 11s., 8d. , 7 7 which are dutiable at 6 cents and 35 per cent., 
and 8 cents and 40 per cent. Another pro forma invoice, (No. 15385,) 
last month, which is for goods purchased from a dressmaker in Paris, 
was advanced by the United States appraiser 60 per cent. From the 
fact that in many cases the importer presents his consular invoice quite 
promptly after the appraiser has made his return and the goods have 
been disposed of, this office regards it as probable that entry is made 
by pro forma invoice in some cases even where the consular invoice 
has been received. By such an entry the importer may test the judg¬ 
ment of the United States appraiser as to the value without incurring 
the penalty for undervaluation 5 and it will be patent to the Department 
that the opportunity is open to the importer in such cases to procure a 
verified invoice in amount not to exceed that returned by the appraiser. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 595 


It could not liave been the intention of the law-makers to thus en¬ 
courage such deceptive practices to the danger of the revenue and the 
injury of honest importers. 

With all due deference to the opinion of the Attorney-General, that 
the additional (penal) duty provided for in section 2900, Revised Stat| 
utes, applies only in cases where entry is made by consular invoice,! 
(that, in his judgment, being the “original invoice,’ 7 as used in thalj 
section,) I submit that section 10, act of June 22, 1874, provides for an 
entry upon affidavit accompanied “ by a statement in the form of ap* 
invoice or otherwise. 77 How, then, is not a statement in the form of 
an invoice the original invoice for the purposes of entry? The act of 
1874 is clear that there must be a statement of value, whatever its form, 
on which to base an entry, and thereby clearly recognizes and provides 
for the requirements of previous enactments for the entry of imported 
merchandise by invoice. 

By way of explanation, it is proper to state right here that the act 
of August 30, 1842, imposed the so-called penal duty for undervalua¬ 
tion in the invoice , but by the acts of July 30, 1846, March 3, 1857, June 
30, 1864, and March 3, 1865, now section 2900, Revised Statutes, the 
importer is permitted to add on entry to his invoice price such sum 
as, in his opinion, shall raise the same to the actual market value. 

If the importer elects to make an entry (there is no compulsion) by 
an invoice received from the shipper, not certified, he is not deprived 
of the opportunity to make an addition thereto on entry for market 
value; and if he makes an invoice himself he cannot complain if he 
takes the responsibility in his own hands and involves his goods in a 
penalty by undervaluing them. Whether an importer adds to the 
value given in an invoice to make market value or in preparing a pro 
forma invoice declares the total value, it is one and the same thing. 
The statute, section 2900, provides, as I have before stated, that an 
importer on making entry may add to the value given in his “ original 
invoice, 77 and that if the “appraised value shall exceed by 10 per 
cent, or more the value so declared in the entry, 77 the additional 
(penal) duty shall be collected. 

The.law does not say certified invoice, it simply says original invoice. 
And is not the invoice by which entry is made the original invoice, 
whether it- be verified or pro formaf Certain it is that a pro forma 
invoice is recognized by the tenth section, act of June 22, 1874. as it is 
by section 2847, Revised Statutes, for the purposes of entry, and, being 
so recognized, it cannot under the law be regarded other than as the 
“original invoice 77 on which entry is made. 

The Supreme Court has decided (17 How., 93) that the penal duty 
under section 2900 attaches irrespective of fraudulent intent. The 
twelfth section of the act of June 22,1874, referred to in the opinion of | 
the Attorney-General, which provides punishment for an intended! 
fraud, is, therefore, not pertinent to the question under consideration J 
This twelfth section does not repeal or even modify by implication thef 
said section 2900, Revised Statutes. 

If the instructions and practices under this act of 1874 must continue 
so long as it remains on the statute-book, then I beg to submit for your 
consideration whether the disadvantages thereunder to the revenue and 
to the honest importer should not be brought to the attention of Con¬ 
gress. It may not be out of place to state that the then Acting Secretary, 
Mr. Hawley, in his letter of Hovember 2, 1878, accepted the Attorney- 


596 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


General’s opinion herein referred to for the purpose of the case of 
Messrs. Baldwin, Sexton & Peterson, notwithstanding that Mr. Assistant 
Secretary French, in his letter of August 27, 1878, held that under the 
rulings of the court there was no law to relieve the case. 

I am, with high respect, your obedient servant, 

W. H. BOBEBTSON, 

Collector . 


Hon. Chas. J. Folger, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


[Enclosure. ] 

C. 

Custom-House, New York, 

Collector's Office , June 3, 1874. 

Memorandum: The solvency and life of a government are dependent 
upon the certainty of the collection of its revenues, and strict laws are 
an absolute necessity to insure their payment into the national Treas¬ 
ury; and such statutes may be efficiently executed without injustice to 
the citizen who, having the welfare of his country at heart, would not 
knowingly commit a fraud upon it. Stringent laws are as essential to 
the honest tax payers as to the Government, for smuggled and other 
fraudulent importations would not fail to destroy the business existence 
of loyal and conscientious merchants. No government can afford laws 
that would be inimical to the interests of such citizens, and yet our 
Congress has a bill before it which, if it become a law, will certainly 
encourage frauds upon the revenue and drive from trade and make 
bankrupt the honest importer, who of course could not compete in 
prices with those who might successfully evade the payment of the just 
impost. 

Honest men have no fears of stringent enactments made for the cer¬ 
tain collection of the revenue, and it is no evidence to the contrary 
because certain parties who have felt the halter draw with no good 
opinion of the law have been before the committees of Congress pray¬ 
ing for statutes less conducive to the safety of the revenue. 

Laws are made, or should be, for the protection of uprightness and 
integrity, and not for the immunity of evil-doers from just punish¬ 
ment, who alone fear the rigors of the law, as they should. 

The plea that has been made by many of innocence after confession 
of judgment is an absurdity to be looked for only in dishonest and 
cowardly men, and to intelligent and thoughtful minds it could only be 
evidence of guilt. 

It is the law of the land that there must be probable cause of seizure; 
and if an officer of the customs seizes without probable cause, no in¬ 
dictment on the statute lies for resisting him in the seizure, and in the 
absence of cause such resistance would naturally be offered and looked 
for. And in cases where there are grounds for mitigation the Secretary 
of the Treasury is (by the act of March 3, 1797) empowered to remit 
fines and forfeitures until the proceeds have been actually received for 
distribution. And such prayers are not unfrequent, and if they are 
not made it may reasonably be concluded that there are no good grounds 
for such petition or it would be advised by counsel, learned in the law, 
employed by the defendant in such cases. 


EEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 597 


And then, again, seizures made by the collector are at his own peril, 
and in a failure to establish probable cause he would personally be 
liable for damages. Moreover, he is under heavy bonds for the faith, 
ful collection of the revenue. Will any man in that office take the 
great responsibility of making seizures without a fair and equitable 
compensation ? No. And it would be unreasonable and contrary to 
the laws of nature to expect it. An incentive or reward is a necessity 
to the sure punishment of offenders. 

The customs officer, of course, would execute the law; but deprive 
him of his just moiety, and he will and must avoid personal risk. 
The experiment of detecting frauds without moieties has been tried and 
found wanting, (see the act of February 11, 1846,) and in the absence 
of a proper equivalent to the seizing officer, and with a high tariff in 
operation, smuggling and frauds on the revenue generally would be 
encouraged and run riot in every port of the United States. 

By the bill before Congress the principal or subordinate officers, or 
persons employed in the customs service, shall report to the district 
attorney violations of the revenue laws. Such a provision of law could 
not fail to destroy the usefulness of a superior officer and to bring forth 
certain insubordination that must be disastrous to the most important 
branch of the Government, for what would be every officer’s business would 
be no officer's business. 

The eighth section of the bill provides that no importation exceeding 
$100 in value, except u personal effects,” shall be admitted to entry 
without a certified invoice or an affidavit and informal invoice. The 
exception would not cover household effects which, in the case of pas¬ 
sengers arriving, are equally entitled to favor, and the present laws 
recognize the two as distinct; and there would be no relief for consign¬ 
ments of green fruits and other perishable merchandise in cases which 
must occur where there is no data on which to make an informal invoice. 

As to section 18, it is not note lawful for any officer of the customs, 
special agent, or district attorney to compromise any penalty or for¬ 
feiture. 

Section 20 declares that whenever any merchandise shall have passed 
free of duty, or wherever the duties have been liquidated and paid, such 
settlement shall, in the absence of fraud and in the absence of protest 
by the importer, u be final and conclusive upon all parties .” This sweeps 
away the long and well-settled rulings of the courts, that the Govern¬ 
ment never loses its rights to the duties. No officer is infallible any 
more than legislators, and if by any chance dutiable goods are classi¬ 
fied as free, the honest importer could not pay nor could the collector 
receive the duties due, and thousands of dollars would be lost to the 
Treasury in cases of continual occurrence of merchants reporting more 
than a year after liquidation additions to their entries for payment of 
duties which they voluntarily offer. They could not be received un¬ 
der this section of the bill after the lapse of twelve months. This in 
itself should be regarded as sufficient to condemn the bill. 

The proposed salaries for officers are not at all commensurate to their 
duties and responsibilities, and do not compare favorably with the 
compensation allowed to attaches of third-rate insurance companies 
and other private institutions, where the trusts in their hands is but 
thousands of dollars to the millions of money received and accounted 
for by the functionaries named in this bill. 


59(S REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The evils complained of by the merchants would be cured by abolish¬ 
ing special agents act of May, 1870, and the repeal of the seventh 
section of the act of March 3, 18Q3, which provides for the seizure of 
books and papers. 

The employment of such agents has been but a hindrance to the 
service and a detriment to the best interests of the revenue, and no 
hue and cry was heard from importers until such officials came to the 
surface. They should be wiped out, and the collector left without 
such foreign interference. 

JOSEPH TRELOAR, 

Chief Clerli. 


I hold the foregoing truths to be self-evident. 

C. P. CLINCH, 
Assistant Collector. 


I fully concur. 


S. G. OGDEN, 

Auditor. 


Note. —Mr. Clinch and Mr. Ogden (both now deceased) were each in the service for 
forty years, and were high authorities in revenue matters.—September 18, 1885. 


No. 95. 

Additional inquiries to Chief Cleric Treloar , New York. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , D. < 7 ., September 25, 1885. 

Sir : Your attention is again invited to my letter of the 5th instant, 
and to the enclosed circular. Your reply of the 18th instant has been 
received, but it has not the “completeness of details” expressly called 
for by my previous communications. 

Your experience in the custom-house at the port of New York has 
been so long, and your official relation to the several collectors has 
been such that candid and complete replies by you to each of the 
questions propounded should be of service to the Executive and to 
to Congress. The communications made from time to time by the 
collector at New York to this Department concern every branch of the 
customs service at that port, and a great part of those letters bear your 
initials. My object is to ascertain from the local officers the present 
actual condition of the customs service throughout the country, and 
especially at the port of New York. Some of my inquiries refer to 
what has been done or omitted within the last few years, but your 
replies need not go further back than two years. When evidence or 
opinions are called for by the inquiries, I wish a direct, explicit, and 
full reply from each officer to whom the circular is sent, without regard 
to the evidence or the opinions that may be satisfactory to another 
officer, and also without regard to the relative functions of the several 
officers, whether in the collector’s or appraiser’s branch of the service. 
I wish the views of each officer receiving the circular letter on each 
subdivision of each question, unless such officer shall say that he has 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 599 


no opinion thereon and no evidence on which he feels entitled to form 
an opinion. You will be free in the expression of your views to 
criticise the decisions of this Department and the conduct of any of 
your superior or associate executive officers. 

If you are cognizant of any failure at any point of the customs ser¬ 
vice in New York to execute the law, you are directed to fully explain 
what you believe to be the character and cause of the failure, in addition 
to such failure as may be disclosed by a distinct and categorical answer 
to each branch of each of the several questions. You are also author¬ 
ized, as chief clerk of the customs at New York, to make known, if 
you shall deem it useful for the accomplishment of the objects I have 
in view, to your associates in New York, and especially in the ap¬ 
praiser’s department, the thorough and straightforward manner in 
which I expect each one of my inquiries to be dealt with. Your im¬ 
mediate attention will be given to the matters covered by these instruc¬ 
tions. 

Very respecfully, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Joseph Treloar, Esq., 

New York , N. Y. 


No. 96. 

Custom-House, New York City, 
Collectors Office , September 29, 1885. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th 
instant, calling for further answers from me to the questions asked in 
your circular letter as to the conduct of the customs business at this 
port. 

It is due to myself that I should say that nothing was further from 
my purpose to be other than “candid” in the replies that I have al¬ 
ready made; and that where they were not as full as might have been 
expected, I naturally assumed that explicit responses would be made 
by those immediately in charge of and responsible for the transaction 
of the business to which the questions relate. 

I shall, however, cheerfully give my attention again to your circular, 
and offer such additional replies as my experience will enable me to 
make; and I shall not delay in so doing, but as my time is fully occu¬ 
pied at my desk from early to late, I ask your kind indulgence as to 
time. 

I remain, with high respect, your obedient servant, 

JOSEPH TRELOAR, 

Chief Clerk of the Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



600 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 97. 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collectors Office , October 14, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor again to refer to your circular making certain 
inquiries as to the customs affairs, and to submit the following addi¬ 
tional replies: 

First question.—As to “what evidence is there, if any, that the rates 
of duty have not within the last few years been levied and collected 
as the law prescribed,” I answer that, if I am correct in my views as 
to the proper construction of the law, there has been failure to levy the 
prescribed rate by reason of Treasury decision of January 12, 1884, (Sy¬ 
nopsis, 6110,) that photographic albums composed of leather, paper, and 
metal were dutiable at the rate chargeable on the component of chief 
value. This, in my judgment, is not sound, for the reasons that the 
tariff imposes stated rates of duty on manufactures of which leather is 
a “part,” of which paper is a “part,” or of which metal is a “part,” 
the imposition of any of said rates not being dependent, under the law, 
on any one of the materials being component of chief value; that sec¬ 
tion 2499, Revised Statutes, as amended by act of March 3, 1883, pro¬ 
vides that “if two or more rates of duty should be applicable to any 
imported article, it shall be classified for duty under the highest of 
such rates;” and that the rate of duty, 45 per cent, ad valorem, im¬ 
posed on manufactures of which metal is a part is the highest of the 
several rates prescribed for manufactures of which leather, paper, and 
metal may each be a “part.” This ruling, which of course applied in 
principle to other manufactures, although not absolutely revoked, has 
practically become null and void by decisions under your administra¬ 
tion of the Department. 

The Department decided November 27, 1883, (Synopsis, 6046,) that 
beans and pease were exempt from duty; March 28, 1884, (Synopsis, 
6273,) that they were dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem; and June 1, 
1885, (Synopsis, 6948,) in acquiescence of the ruling of the court, that 
they are dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem—all under the same law. 

The Department decided August 22, 1885, (Synopsis, 7080,) that 
shelled lobsters preserved in vinegar are exempt from duty. Conced¬ 
ing that shelled lobsters, canned, are exempt from duty under the pro¬ 
vision for “shrimps or other shell fish,” (T. I., new, 783,) by reason 
of the proviso to section 2499, Revised Statutes, as amended, I submit, 
are they not dutiable under that same proviso by being preserved in 
vinegar, vinegar being a “dutiable material and used” in their pres¬ 
ervation? I think so. 

The Department held April 26, 1883, (Synopsis, 5678,) that certain 
so-called “granulated rice” is dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem, 
under section 2513, Revised Statutes, as a manufactured article u 7iot 
herein [in the tariff] enumerated or provided /or.” I hold that, by 
assimilation to cleaned rice, granulated rice is “provided for” by 
virtue of section 2499, Revised Statutes, at 21 cents per pound, that 
being the rate imposed on cleaned rice, and that my position is not 
inconsistent with the decisions of the court cited by the Department 
for a contrary conclusion. In addition to those decisions, I refer to 
that in vol. 2, Curtis C. C., 499.* 

* Since writing the foregoing, I have been informed that the United States circuit 
court in Philadelphia has j ust made a decision as to the classification of bichromate of 
soda, which confirms my views as to the force aud application of section 2499, Revised 
Statutes. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 601 


In this connection I submit it as my judgment that any finding by 
the collector as to the character of merchandise will not stand in law, 
the return of the United States appraiser in that regard being, in my 
opinion, binding. My reasons for this opinion are set forth in my 
communication to the collector under date of July 30, 1885, a copy of 
which I transmit herewith. 

One other decision of the Department which comes to my mind and 
which I think is not sound, is that of July 28, 1885, (Synopsis, 7046,) 
adhered to under date of August 5, 1885, (Synopsis, 7063,) as to the 
classification of so-called dressed furs. These furs are imported in the 
form of rugs, and as rugs they are provided for in the tariff by name; 
and, being so imported and provided for, no subsequent change or al¬ 
teration of their form can effect their classification as rugs under the 
tariff. The collector submitted the same view in his letter of the 4th 
of August last, a copy of which is also transmitted herewith for ready 
reference. 

Then again, (although the amount rather than the rate of duty is 
involved,) the Department, in Synopsis, 7096, adheres to article 470, 
Regulations, 1884, that “in cases of disagreement between merchant 
and general appraisers on reappraisement * * * the collector is 
not bound to follow either,” but may for himself on the evidence de¬ 
termine the market value for assessment of duties. 

The law, section 2930, Revised Statutes, provides in such case that 
“the collector shall decide between them.” If he “is not bound to 
follow either, 7 ’ but may fix an independent value, then I submit that 
he does not “decide between them,” but, on the contrary, he puts them 
both aside , and may, as the present collector has done in one case, find 
and adopt for assessment of duties by himself a value lower than the 
lowest returned by the disagreeing appraisers! 

Had Congress intended That the collector should exercise the powers 
of appraiser, it would have so legislated; but it has not. The appraisers 
have the power, by statute, to examine the goods and to take testimony 
as to the value; and if they disagree, I submit that there is nothing for 
the collector to do in “deciding between them” but to adopt one or 
the other of their reports of the appraisement made by them in the 
mode provided by law. The statute looks to an appraisement as a basis 
for the assessment of duties, and the collector cannot legally make an 
appraisement, and therefore I repeat that he cannot, in my judgment, 
adopt for duty purposes a value other than that returned by an ap¬ 
praiser. 

Second question. —As to evidence, if any, that the full amouut of duties 
have not been collected where the rates are purely specific, I add to my 
answer of the 18th ultimo, that, if my memory serves me correctly, I 
have incidentally heard Mr. Special Agent Bingham mention an im¬ 
portation in Boston where the actual quantity was discovered to be 
greater than that on which duties were assessed, and in that case the 
impression is on my mind that the rates were specific. I can recall no 
developed similar case at this port. 

Third question. —I am not advised of the methods employed by the 
appraiser in verifying the invoiced measurements of textile fabrics. 

Fourth question. —l am unaware of any evidence of collusion, for sev¬ 
eral years, between importers and customs officers, to send for examina¬ 
tion a bogus or false package. 

Fifth question. —From my own knowledge I can add no evidence to 
that given in my answer of the 18th ultimo of false or incompetent or 



602 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves. I have at times 
heard statements made that there was looseness in weighing, but I have 
not had before me “evidence’ 7 to establish such a case. I have seen 
from time to time amended returns made by the weighers where im¬ 
porters have alleged that the original returns were excessive and the 
weighers have admitted clerical errors on their part. 

At a port of the magnitude of this, I submit that the service would 
be benefited if the surveyor had two or three additional deputies, whose 
business it should be to visit daily all the inspectors engaged in dis¬ 
charging vessels, and all the weighers. Such supervision would, I am 
impressed, bring good results. The surveyor has now but one deputy. 

Sixth question .—First subdivision : In respect to differences between 
importers and collectors which have resulted in suits, does the existing 
law need amendment? Yes; if the Department’s construction thereof 
is allowed to stand, that a protest against a liquidation may be lodged 
before the liquidation is made; in other words, before there is any 
ground for protest. I think I have heretofore remarked that it might 
as well be held that a promissory note may be protested before it is due. 
The law (section 2931, Revised Statutes) is that protest shall be made 
within ten days “after” liquidation. See Department’s decision, 4079, 
revoking 3730, which was based on a decision by Chief-Justice Waite, 
sitting in circuit. The conclusion of the Department in 4079 is to me 
astounding, in that it accepts the decision of the court, which is against 
the Government “until a decision of the Supreme Court shall be had 
upon the question.” 

How the question is going to get to the Supreme Court under such 
circumstances I do not know; certain it is that the importers will not 
take it there. The present rule increases such papers, and encourages 
claim agents to make them where they would not if compelled to await 
the result of the liquidation. If a proviso were inserted in the law that 
protests lodged before liquidation will be regarded as invalid, there 
would be no room for question. 

Second subdivision: It is reported to me, from the division in charge 
of such matters, that from December 4, 1866, to September 30, 1885, 
10,063 suits have been instituted against the collector at Hew York, and 
5, 772 discontinued, leaving 4,291 pending suits of what are known as 
the “new series.” I am informed that the number of the “old series” 
pending cannot, without much time and labor, be determined. 

Third subdivision : It is impracticable for this office to classify the 
suits, and how long each untried suit has been ready for trial can be 
answered intelligently by the district attorney only. 

Fourth subdivision: It seems to me that perhaps the law officers of 
the Government might devise a plan for the prompt disposal of pending 
suits by which test cases may be tried in court for the settlement of the 
legal points involved, and sending to referees all those involving simply 
questions of fact. From what I hear, I judge that the great want is 
active and thorough lawyers as assistant district attorneys in the place 
of those who, although they may be naturally bright, are comparatively 
but new beginners in the profession. The Government would, I am 
fully persuaded, be the gainer by the employment of the best legal talent 
in the trial of revenue cases. 

Fifth subdivision: As to whether the law in respect to the payment 
of interest as a part of the judgment in such suits needs amendment, I 
beg to refer to my answer of the 18th ultimo. 



REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 603 


Sixth subdivision: In my judgment, there is no necessity for a new 
tribunal to try such suits. I am impressed that the present system “can 
be made sufficient if it be worked efficiently,” and, in my opinion, it 
can be worked efficiently if the district attorney has for assistants able 
and experienced lawyers. 

Seventh question. —As to the class of articles on which the Government 
has, during recent years, failed to levy and collect the full amount of 
duties, I refer to my answer of the 18th ultimo, and add that I have no 
knowledge of evidence other than the reappraisements which were the 
result of the recent investigations by special agents, and those, as I have 
said before, related principally to silks, satins, laces, and other costly 
fabrics, and I do not see how such reappraisements can be “contro¬ 
verted successfully.” 

Eighth question —How has the failure to collect the full amount of 
duties come about? By venturesome experiments, as I said in my 
answer of the 18th ultimo, of enterprising importers in invoicing and 
entering their goods at less than their true market value, and the failure 
of the appraisers to return the correct market value 5 but I am not 
aware of any evidence to show a guilty knowledge of the failure, or a 
conspiracy among officials to promote it. 

Ninth question. —First subdivision: If there is “evidence that the ap¬ 
praiser (not the general appraiser) has reported to the collector false 
dutiable values, how long has the falsehood been in operation?” The 
evidence that such false returns have been made is in the fact of for¬ 
feitures for undervaluations, and I believe that they “have been in oper¬ 
ation,” more or less, ever since there was a tariff; but suits for forfeit¬ 
ures for undervaluation have seldom been brought, and, when brought, 
have at times failed by reason of the burden put on the Government to 
prove “intent to defraud,” as provided by the so-called anti-moiety law. 

Second subdivision: Such undervaluation has not been of any par¬ 
ticular class of goods, but of a variety of articles, sometimes one and 
sometimes another. 

Third subdivision: The articles have come from different places. 

Fourth subdivision: They have represented consigned (manufact¬ 
urer’s) goods as well as purchased goods, but mostly the former. 

Fifth subdivision: Whether the same general condition of things has 
existed at other ports I cannot say. 

The proof of false returns of dutiable values by the local appraisers 
is in the fact of advances made by them at the instance recently of 
special agents, which advances have in a measure, I believe, been sus¬ 
tained on reappraisement. 

Tenth question. —First. I have been given to understand that there has 
been doubt and conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s department respect¬ 
ing elements of dutiable value consequent upon the seventh section of 
the act of March 3, 1883, revoking previous laws which made certain 
charges elements of dutiable value. 

Second. Some of the assistant appraisers hold to the opinion, I believe, 
under the law as it now stands, that it is the naked goods only that are 
dutiable, while others hold to the opinion, under section 2906, Bevised 
Statutes, that it is the market value of the goods in their marketable con¬ 
dition that is dutiable, which, of course, includes the cost of cartons, 
labels, wrappers, cards, and such like necessary to that condition. The 
latter is my view, and, as I believe, it is that of the present appraiser, 
and his view, I assume, controls the practice of his department in that 
regard. 


604 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Eleventh question .—An average estimate cannot now be made, in my 
judgment, of the percentage of undervaluations in any year or series of 
years. It would, I am impressed, be next to impossible, if not quite 
impossible, to identify the articles or invoices. 

Twelfth question. —As to the officers responsible for undervaluations, 
I can add nothing to my answer of the 18th ultimo. 

Thirteenth question. —As stated in my answer of the 18th ultimo, I am 
unaware of any evidence that Government officials have assisted, con¬ 
sented, or connived at the presentation to the appraisers of false evi¬ 
dence of foreign values. 

Fourteenth question .—First. I do not know that “false values have 
been habitually and systematically reported to the collectors ” under 
the previous or the present administration of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment, nor that any failure to faithfully execute the tariff law “has 
come of dishonesty” or by guilty knowledge on the part of Treasury 
or customs officials, and, therefore, my answers to the two other sub¬ 
divisions of this questions as to any corruption “fund” are in the nega¬ 
tive. But, as I stated in my previous communication, certain attaches 
of the appraiser’s department were reported to the district attorney for 
alleged fraudulent practices, and the prosecution, I have since learned, 
failed in conviction. 

Fifteenth question. —As to the dangers from bribery, I can add nothing 
to my answer of the 18th ultimo. 

Sixteenth question. —As to the effect of a change from ad valorem to 
specific duties, I beg to refer to my answer of the 18th ultimo. 

Seventeenth question. —Referring to my answer of the 18th ultimo, I 
will add that I for myself have no doubt that the repeal of the moiety 
system and the legislation modifying the law of 1863, respecting the 
seizure of books and papers, have increased false eutered values, and, 
as a consequence, false appraised values. 

Eighteenth question .—First. It is my decided opinion that it would be 
impracticable for consuls, no matter how numerous and alert, to per¬ 
sonally examine merchandise and verify the correctness of invoice 
values. 

Second. I am unaware of any consular district in which such officers 
can “safely and surely ascertain the true values of every shipment,” 
especially of purchased goods. They may, of course, ascertain the 
general market value of a given article. 

Third. It is quite likely that foreign governments would “not ab¬ 
stain from complaints to this Government” of such examination of 
goods by our consuls. They would not, I am confident, tolerate such 
action. 

Fourth. The law. section 2851, Revised Statutes, provides that con¬ 
suls shall be entitled to demand and receive for the verification of each 
invoice two dollars and fifty cents, and no distinction is made whether 
the merchandise is of little or great value. An exception is made by 
section 1721, Revised Statutes, as to invoices from the British North 
American provinces, for the verification of which the fee is one dollar 
each. In addition to the consular fee of $2.50, the invoices from Lon¬ 
don and England show a charge of four shillings and sixpence for 
“commissioner’s fee.” In this connection, I find of record in this 
office a letter from the Treasury Department, dated October 6, 1862, in 
which, in a case presented by Naylor & Co., the collector is informed 
that the Secretary of State had received a communication from the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 605 

United States consul at London, who writes that “as foreigners cannot 
legally administer oaths to British subjects, all oaths to invoices made 
by such subjects have to be taken before a magistrate, qualified accord¬ 
ing to English law to administer oaths, some one authorized by the con¬ 
sul being in attendance to witness the signing of the papers.” But 
consuls were instructed by the State Department, in its circular, No. 
35, of April 27, 1863, that, by the 1st section of the act of March 3, 
1863, now section 2854, Revised Statutes, “the declaration is substituted 
for the oath heretofore required.” I take it for granted that the Eng¬ 
lish law covers “declarations” as well as “oaths.” Certain it is that 
invoices from England have thereon declarations made before “a com¬ 
missioner to administer oaths in the supreme court of judicature in 
England,” and a certificate of the United States consul verifying the 
declarations. 

Nineteenth question .—As stated in my answer of the 18th ultimo, it 
would not, I am of the opinion, “be safe or useful to the revenue” for 
the executive or judiciary to have greater or other powers than are now 
provided by statute in the‘ascertainment of dutiable values. Market 
value, which is now dutiable value, is a question of fact and not of law, 
and is a living issue. In many cases, if made the subject of protest and 
appeal and suit, it would be years before the question would be settled. 
Perhaps it will be said that the law, as it stands, is arbitrary; and I 
answer that ‘ ‘ all revenue laws must of necessity be arbitrary. 7 ’ 

Twentieth question. —As to the history of the several tariffs on wool 
since 1860, I learn from the appraiser that his assistant, Mr. Strong, lias 
made a very full report. If in addition to that a statement of the im¬ 
portations of wool and the revenue derived therefrom under the several 
tariffs shall be desired, I beg to suggest whether it may not be readily 
obtained from the Bureau of Statistics or the Commissioner of Customs 
in Washington; if not, then an order to the collector at this port would 
probably secure it from the auditor’s department of this office, so far as 
the importations into this district are concerned. 

Twenty-first question. —I will add to my answer of the 18th ultimo, as 
to the payment of money by passengers to inspectors of baggage, that 
the belief is almost universal that such payments are constantly made. 

I can suggest no plan under the present system of examining baggage, 
unless it be the employment from time to time of keen and trustworthy 
detectives, who shall not be known, to the end that the guilty parties 
shall be discovered and punished. The discovery and punishment of 
even one or two would have a salutary effect. As it is now, it is almost 
impossible to secure the necessary proof to convict, the act of the giver 
and the act of the taker being both condemned by law. 

Twenty-second question. —As to whether the evidence tends to show 
that the rates of duty have “been carried by Congress beyond and 
above the line which the Government can surely protect, and into a 
region where smugglers and shippers will be very powerful in evading 
the law, 7 7 I answer that while attempts to evade the legal impost are 
the most tempting as to goods paying the highest rates because of their 
great value, my experience convinces me that the greatest vigilance is 
necessary to the safety of the revenue, whether the rates are high or 
low, undervaluation and smuggling being practised as to goods on 
which the tariff imposes different rates. 

Twenty-third question. —Refers to transactions at ports other than New 
York, with which I am not acquainted. 


606 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Twenty-fourth question .—As to why the persons or officials concerned 
in false returns of dutiable values have not been complained of, ar¬ 
rested, indicted, and punished, I answer that I am aware of but two 
or three cases of officials being complained of to the district attorney 
in that regard, and they were discharged, I am informed, for want of 
sufficient evidence. Many cases, however, have arisen w r here the cir¬ 
cumstances gave rise to very strong suspicions of wrong-doing, and if 
they were not reported to the United States attorney, I assume that it 
was because those specially charged with the investigation of such 
matters failed to find sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. I 
repeat the suggestions made in my answer of the 18th ultimo, “that in 
such cases the appraising officers should be called upon to explain 
their delinquency, and that if found to be with a guilty knowledge 
they should be prosecuted; and if from incompetency, they should 
leave the service. 77 

In addition to the foregoing, and in obedience to your direction, I 
point out failures to execute the law. 

First. The 25th section, act June 22, 1874, (vol. 18, page 186,) pro¬ 
vides “that public cartage of merchandise in the custody of the Gov¬ 
ernment shall be let, after not less than thirty days 7 notice of such letting, 
to the lowest responsible bidder giving sufficient security, and shall be 
subject to regulations approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. 77 I 
am unaware of any “letting 77 of cartage in accordance with this law, 
except the cartage of goods ordered to the public store for examination. 

^Unclaimed goods—that is, goods not entered and goods bonded for 
warehousing—are, under the statute, “in the custody of the Govern¬ 
ment ; 7 7 and yet, as I understand it, no ‘ ‘ letting 7 7 of the cartage thereof 
“to the lowest responsible bidder 77 has been made. It has been given 
in the main to the parties bidding and contracting for the transfer of 
the so-called “public-store packages, 77 and not, I believe, at the same 
prices as are paid for those packages. In this connection, I report the 
fact that complaints are received almost daily from importers of delays 
on the part of the public-store cartmen in transferring packages. This, 
I can readily conceive, is a very serious matter to importers, and should 
be remedied. From all that I can gather, the service is indifferently 
performed. Other contractors should, in my opinion, be substituted for 
the present ones, and that, too, at once. 

Second. The retention of unclaimed goods on the steamers 7 wharves 
for forty-eight hours after they are landed, as authorized by the Depart¬ 
ment’s instructions of May 5, 1878, (Synopsis, 3230.) 

The law, section 2966, Revised Statutes, as amended by section 24, act 
of June 26, 1884, provides that when it shall appear by the bill of lading 
that, the merchandise is to be delivered immediately on arrival, the col¬ 
lector may take possession of the goods, and the same section, as well as 
section 2963, declares how he shall take possession, the latter section dis¬ 
tinctly providing that “ merchandise * * * not * * * entered 
* * * shall be deposited in the public warehouse, and shall there re¬ 
main at the expense and risk of the owner, 77 and the liability of steam¬ 
ship companies for goods remaining on the wharf is, under the statute, 
section 2871, Revised Statutes, only for such as may be landed at night. 

When bills of lading were first drawn, with the condition to deliver 
the goods immediately on arrival, under the act of August 3, 1854, the 
steamship companies defrayed the first forty-eight hours storage charges, 
as an offset to the right of the importer to have three days 7 notice, under 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 607 


the last provision in section 2966, Revised Statutes, before the collector 
shall take possession of the goods when the bill of lading is not con¬ 
ditioned as stated. 

The instructions in question, which are clearly, in my opinion, with¬ 
out warrant of law, are the outgrowth of the so-called “Jay Commis¬ 
sion, n which investigated the customs service at this port some years 
since. The instructions are beneficial only to steamship companies, and 
foreign corporations at that. Such favors are certainly not in the in¬ 
terest of importers, for deliveries to them and transfers to the public 
store are delayed by the piling of the goods on the wharves, not to men¬ 
tion the dangers by theft and fire.. Some two or three years since quite 
considerable cargo of the steamer “Egypt” so landed was destroyed 
by fire. Whether the owners have ever succeeded in making any re¬ 
covery from the steamship company I am not informed, but certain it 
is that, by virtue of section 2984, Revised Statutes, the Government lost 
the duties on such destroyed cargo. 

Third. The failure to execute the law, section 2939, Revised Statutes, 
as to the representative packages that shall be sent to the United States 
public store for examination and appraisement. To execute the law to 
the letter in this regard will require a store of at least twice the capacity 
of the one now occupied for that purpose, and a large increase of ex¬ 
aminers and verifiers. I recall a case where the United States circuit 
court held that the 20 per cent, additional duty did not attach for under¬ 
valuation because of the failure to send for examination the legal 
number of packages; but now, as a rule, where undervaluation is found, 
all the goods are ordered in for appraisement. 

Fourth. As a matter of fact the actual “lading” (as required by 
sections 2627 and 3035, Revised Statutes) of goods exported for draw¬ 
back is not superintended by officers of the customs, and the present 
force is not equal thereto. As it is, the officer, as a rule, sees that the 
goods are deposited at the wharf and receipted for by the export vessel. 

Fifth. In conclusion, conceding that the Department’s instructions 
in Synopsis, 4919, are not contrary to law, in accepting bills of lading 
as evidence of exportation of goods for drawback of duties where the 
amount does not exceed $100, instead of a bond*for the production of 
certificates of landing abroad, I am impressed that if frauds are not 
practised thereunder, the door is open for them, for the Department 
must know that an officer is not in charge of an outgoing vessel as he 
is of an incoming vessel. 

Submitting the foregoing, I am, with high respect, your obedient 
servant, 

JOSEPH TRELOAR, 

Chief Clerk of the Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


i 


608 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


(Enclosure.) 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collector’s Office, August 4, 1885. 

Sir : I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ul¬ 
timo, in which you hold, on the appeal of J. & A. Boskowitz, that 
certain so-called dress furs are dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem. 

An interview, since your decision, with an importer of high standing 
who deals largely in furs, prompts me to present for your consideration 
the statement made by him, verified by my own experience, and which 
will not, it is believed, be denied by the appellants, that furs in the con¬ 
dition in which those in question were imported— 4. e., sewed together — 
are, without further manufacture, bought and sold as rugs. It is true 
that the larger portion of them are, after importation, taken apart, re¬ 
sewed in larger sizes, and sold as robes; but I submit that the provisions 
of the tariff apply to imported goods in the condition in which they 
are landed, and not to their subsequent altered condition. The Depart¬ 
ment* has so held in its letter of February 2, 1878, on application of 
Mr. E. Aymard as to certain burr millstones; in its letter of March 
21, 1881. on appeal of Henry Barlow as to certain so-called samples 
and in its decision of October 25,1878, (Synopsis, 3748,) on certain old 
brass tubes. 

The furs under consideration are, in the form in which imported, rugs, 
and were so found and returned by the United States appraiser; and as 
other like importations will doubtless be made, the question presents 
itself, can the judgment of the appraiser as to the character of imported 
merchandise he directed ? 

The United States Supreme Court has held “that any dispute as to 
the nature of the produce imported and its consequent classification in 
the invoice and entry were questions of fact within the jurisdiction of 
the appraiser.” The appraiser’s classification as to rates of duty are, 
of course, only advisory. The furs imported by the present appellants 
are not, as understood by this office, dissimilar to those which the De¬ 
partment decided December 19, 1882, (Synopsis, 5454,) to be dutiable 
at 45 per cent, ad valbrem, as rugs, under the provision therefor in the 
old tariff, and the only change in the new tariff in regard thereto is a 
reduction of the duty to 40 per cent, ad valorem. 

In view of the foregoing, I recommend that the United States ap¬ 
praiser shall take sworn testimony, as provided in section 2922, Bevised 
Statutes, so that he may determine for himself whether or not furs 
sewed as are those in question are merchantable as rugs. 

If an importer brings his goods into the United States in a form to 
meet the plain provisions of the tariff, I fail to see how any subsequent 
treatment of the goods can avail to avoid such provisions. 

Please instruct me. 

I am, with high respect, your obedient servant, 

E. L. HEDDEN, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


report of the secretary of the treasury. 609 


(Enclosure.) 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collector 1 s Office , July 30, 1885. 

Sir : In the matter of the appeal from your assessments of duties on 
certain so-called granulated rice, I feel that I would hill short in the 
conscientious discharge of my official duty were 1 to fail to point out the 
practical difficulties which stand in the way of the collector in his taking 
testimony as to the character of the rice. They are the laws, as defined 
by the highest judicial courts, which make it the duty of the United 
States appraisers to ascertain the character of imported merchandise, 
and the absence of any statutory authority for any other method. 

The appraiser reports the character of imported merchandise to enable 
the collector to range or classify the same under the tariff. Were it 
otherwise, the collector would be under the necessity of examining and 
determining for himself the character of imports. As it is, the ap¬ 
praiser reports whether the goods are of the character described in the 
invoice, and this he must first determine, else he cannot intelligently 
make return as to the market value, for if an appraiser may report the 
value of a crude article as that of one not crude, where would be safety 
to the revenue in his action? 

Section 2899, Eevised Statutes, provides that no merchandise shall be 
delivered until inspected or appraised, or until the same “shall be found 
correctly and fairly invoiced and put up, and so reported to the col¬ 
lector.” Certainly merchandise would not be “fairly invoiced and put 
up” if falsely described as to its character ; and by whom but by the 
appraiser does the law require that that fact shall be determined and 
“be reported to the collector?” 

The United States Supreme Court has decided, in 24 Howard, 525, 
that “it was competent for the appraisers to correct the misdescription 
in the invoice and entry, or disregard it, so as to perform their duty as 
required by law. Unless they have that right, then the grossest frauds 
may be committed by an importer with perfect impunity; and if they 
have that right, as clearly they must, then it follows that any dispute as to 
the nature of the produce imported and its classification in the invoice 
and entry were questions of fact within the jurisdiction of the appraisers, 
and their decision is final and conclusive.” 

It is true the law (section 2902, Eevised Statutes) provides that the 
appraiser shall, “by all reasonable ways and means in his power,” ascer¬ 
tain the true value of imported merchandise; and it cannot be denied 
that the first and one of the most essential “ways” of reaching that fact 
is the determination of the character of the merchandise which governs 
■the classification for duty. 

Moreover, it is competent for the appraiser, and not for the collector, 
under section 2922, Eevised Statutes, to call before him “and examine 
upon oath any owner, importer, consignee, or other person touching any 
matter or thing which he may deem material in ascertaining the true 
market value * * * of any merchandise imported;” and certainly 
the fact as to whether the rice is granulated or not is material to the 
ascertainment of its value. The question as to the tariff classification 
of the rice is now before the honorable Secretary of the Treasury on an 
appeal under section 2931, Eevised Statutes, and if in his consideration 
of the appeal he remits the case to the officers of the customs for review 
by them of their action, I submit that such review would properly 
proceed under the law by action, first of the appraiser, as to the cor. 

39 A 


610 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


rectness of his return as to the character of the merchandise, which 
guides the collector in his assessments of duties, the appraiser calling 
before him, and examining under oath, persons touching the matter in 
dispute, and furnishing such testimony as he might obtain, together 
with his views thereof, for the information of the honorable Secretary. 
I take it that the appraiser, in making his return, was governed by the 
instructions in Treasury circular of the 25th ultimo, which confines 
granulated rice to cases where 4 ‘ the substance must indicate that it has 
been subjected to an intentional process of grinding or manufacture 
and that but for such instructions he would not have declined to receive 
and consider documentary evidence as to the fact. He certainly, from 
the very nature of his duties, is the best qualified to determine the 
weight that should be given to such evidence. 

Submitting the foregoing with deference, I am, very respectfully, 
your obedient servant, 

JOSEPH TRELOAR, 

Chief Clerk of ihe Customs. 


Hon. E. L. Hedden, 

Collector of the Customs , Port of New York. 


No. 98. 

WM. DORSHEIMER—Appointed United States District Attorney July 1, 1885. 

Office of the United States Attorney 
for the Southern District of New York, 

New York, October 19, 1885. 

Sir : In your letter of September 8 you direct my attention and re¬ 
quest my replies to the sixth paragraph of the inquiries thereto 
appended. 

This paragraph reads as follows: 

“In respect to rates of duty, and differences between importers and 
collectors growing out of decisions by the latter and the Treasury which 
have resulted in suits, does the existing law need amendment? How 
many such collectors’ suits are now pending in Boston, New York, 
Philadelphia, and Baltimore? If they can be classified and the legal 
question at issued identified, how many suits are there in each classi¬ 
fication, and how long has each untried suit been at issue and ready for 
trial? Cannot a plan be devised by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor 
of the Treasury, the district attorneys, and the judges, by which these 
suits can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits as they come up 
be speedily put at issue and tried? Does the existing law in respect to 
the payment of interest' as a part of the damages and costs in 1 col¬ 
lectors’ suits ’ need amendment? Is there a necessity for a new tribunal 
to try judicially questions growing out of rates of external or internal 
taxation levied by the executive when taxpayers are dissatisfied, or 
can the existing judicial system be made sufficient if it be worked 
efficiently?” 

The existing law to which your inquiry refers is, as I understand it, 
the tariff act of March 3, 1883. 

Under this act a large number of collectors’ suits have arisen in this 
district, but only two of such suits have thus far been tried, viz: Ober- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 611 


teuffer vs. Robertson, N. S., 9055, and Windmuller vs. Robertson, N. 
S., 9295. 

The Oberteuffer suit arose under the seventh section of this act, and 
involved the question of the durability of certain cartons containing 
hosiery. It was tried in May, 1884, and a verdict was rendered for the 
defendant. A report of the trial, together with the opinion of the court, 
was transmitted to the Department May 17, 1884. Subsequently, the 
plaintiffs moved for a new trial, and elaborate briefs were submitted by 
both sides. After due deliberation the court denied the motion. A 
report of the argument of this motion, together with the opinion of the 
court rendered thereon, was transmitted to the Department August 22, 
1885. 

The Windmuller suit involved the rate of duty on edible “beans.” 
Your predecessor in office, on March 28, 1884, (see Treasury Decisions, 
No. 6273,) held that such “beans” were dutiable at 20 per cent, ad 
valorem, under the provision for “garden-seeds, except seed of the 
sugar -beet. 7 7 On the trial of this suit, the court held that such ‘ 4 beans 7 7 
were dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem, as vegetables. In this decis¬ 
ion, as appears by the letter to the collector of June 1, 1885, the De¬ 
partment acquiesced. 

With the limited data furnished by these two suits only before me 
from which to judge, I am not prepared to express any opinion as to 
whether the existing law needs amendment in respect to rates of duty 
and differences between importers and collectors, growing out of the 
decisions by the latter and the Treasury Department, which have re¬ 
sulted in suits. 

The number of collectors’ suits now pending in this district is about 
twenty-three hundred (2,300.) Of these suits about one hundred and 
ninety-five arose under the acts of July 30, 1846; March 3, 1851; and 
March 3, 1857. The remaining suits arose under various acts passed 
since 1857. 

In these suits, as in all suits of a similar nature, the pleadings per¬ 
mitted by the practice of the courts do not disclose the precise issues 
in controversy. Those issues can only be accurately determined from 
the plaintiffs 7 protests, which, with very few exceptions, are now on 
file at the custom-house. The time and force at the command of this 
office have not permitted the examination of any protests now so filed, 
or the ascertainment of the exact dates of issue in all these suits; but, 
so far as the records of this office make known the various issues in 
pending suits, they have been set forth in a statement herewith en¬ 
closed, together with the number of suits involving each issue, the 
number of suits at issue, and which of such issues have been tried. 

Besides those issues there are undoubtedly many other issues of law 
or fact, which would appear from a thorough and complete examination 
of the papers and protests in each of these suits. 

Of these suits no one is now fully ready for trial. It has been the 
practice of this office, as I understand, to prepare for trial a sufficient 
number of these suits, with different issues, to occupy the time allotted 
by the court for the trial of collectors 7 suits, and, as I am informed, a 
sufficient number of these suits, with different issues, can be prepared 
for that purpose for the coming term of court. 

In none of these suits, as already suggested, do the pleadings give 
any intimation of what the issue really is, or what is the Government’s 
defence, and in but very few of these suits put at issue prior to May 23, 


612 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


1883, does there appear to be in this office or elsewhere within the con¬ 
trol of the Government any note or memorandum as to what were the 
facts on which the action of the Government officers was based, or what 
witnesses are available for the defence. 

On May 23, 1883, on the request of my predecessor in office, the then 
Secretary of the Treasury instructed the collectors of customs in this 
district, on the receipt by him from this office of the bill of particulars 
in each collector’s suit not then at issue or thereafter brought, to ascer¬ 
tain and report in writing to this office, for the purpose of enabling it 
to draw intelligently the answer therein, and to assist it in preparing 
such suit for trial so far as the same can then be so prepared, certain 
facts, of which the following only are now required : 

1. Whether the protest and appeal and suit are within the periods 
respectively limited by law. 

2. Under what clause of the statute the goods in question have re¬ 
spectively been classified, with reference to the paragraph of Heyl’s 
Digest under which such clause can be found. 

3. A copy of the protest or protests, with reference to the paragraph 
of Heyl’s Digest upon which the plaintiff relies. 

4. What are the facts as to the material, quality, texture, or use to 
which the article may be applied, upon which the classification com¬ 
plained of is adopted and the classification claimed by the importers is 
rejected. 

5. What officer of customs or other persons, so far as known to the 
customs officers dealing with the case, are acquainted with the facts or 
will be of value to the Government as witnesses to maintain the issues 
on its part 1 ? 

Since these instructions were issued, this office has transmitted to the 
collector, as soon as served, the bill of particulars in each collector’s 
suit not then at issue or thereafter commenced, and the collector has 
been ascertaining and reporting to this office the above-mentioned facts 
therein. 

On receipt by this office of one of these reports, the answer is at once 
drawn in the suit to which the report refers, and the report thereafter 
filed with the other papers therein. 

As the collector’s part of this system has since its inauguration been, 
and is now being, carried out by him, long periods of time elapse 
between the receipt by him of the bill of particulars in these suits and 
the making by him to this office of his reports therein. In some suits 
such periods have amounted to about two years. 

If the collectors’ reports in these suits could be made to this office, 
within say, twenty days, or some other reasonable time, after the receipt 
by him of the bills of particulars therein, much would be done towards 
putting this office in a position speedily to put at issue new suits and to 
prepare for trial each issue involved therein. 

As a part of a plan to secure the more prompt disposition of these 
suits, I recommend that the collector be required (and if he has not 
sufficient force for that purpose, that sufficient force be furnished him to 
enable him) hereafter to make his reports in these suits to this office 
within such time as suggested. Suits involving new issues can then, 
with the information given by these reports, be immediately put at 
issue; each of the new issues in the suits at issue be prepared for trial; 
the suits involving the same (one for each new issue so prepared for 
trial) placed upon the calendar of the court for the next term, and, it 


RKPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 613 


is believed, tried at such term. At the same time it is also believed 
that as many of the old issues as the force in this office can prepare for 
trial can also be tried at the same term. 

As another part of such plan, I recommend that as soon as an issue in 
any ot these suits, whether new or old, has been tried, and the decision 
of the court at such trial acquiesced in, and a refund in all suits in¬ 
volving an issue of the same kind as the one tried has been ordered by 
the Department, the collector be required at once to adjust such suits 
in accordance with the principles laid down in the decision of the court; 
that if, for want ot sufficient facts because of some legal question, or 
for some other reason, the collector is of the opinion that he cannot so 
adjust any one of such suits, he be directed to report at once such suit 
to this office, and that the same be referred to a referee for his deter¬ 
mination of the whole suit, if the issue in question be the only issue 
involved; and if there be other issues involved, then for the determi¬ 
nation of the issue in question only. 

I think that the saving to the Government of interest alone which 
would be effected if this course were pursued would be much more 
than sufficient to pay the expenses of a referee, whether he were com¬ 
pensated for his services at the same rate as a referee is in the State 
courts or by a fixed salary per annum to be paid by the Government. 

Under the present plan, when the trial of an issue in one of these 
suits results in a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, and the Department 
acquiesces in such decision, and instructs the collector to adjust, in 
accordance with the principles thereof, issues of the same kind as the 
one tried in all other suits, he proceeds to carry out such instructions; 
but, as experience shows, before he has gone far, he comes upon a suit 
which, for want of sufficient facts, or because of some legal question, or 
for some other reason, he cannot adjust. 

Such a suit, unless the plaintiffs concede it should not be adjusted, 
is brought by them into court. The court and jury are told by them 
that the principles governing the suit have been settled by the court 
and acquiesced in by the Department, but that, for some technical 
reason, the Government refuses to adjust and pay it, and that, to get 
the money justly due them, they are obliged to trouble the court and 
jury to retry the issues involved. 

Under such circumstances the time of the court is taken up in re¬ 
trying an old issue when an issue never before tried might be tried; 
the jury is restless and impatient, and a prejudice is created in their 
minds, if not in the mind of the court, against the Government which 
works to its disadvantage, not only in the suit then before the jury, but 
in all other suits that come before the same jury, or any of them. 

Some time, of course, would elapse before the effects of the plan pro¬ 
posed by me would be realized, as would be the case with any new 
plan; but, as I am now advised, I believe that if such a plan be thor¬ 
oughly tried, with a sufficient force at the custom-house to prepare the 
collector’s reports as soon as possible after the bills of particulars in 
suits have been served, and with a sufficient force in this office to at¬ 
tend to the necessary legal work connected with these suits, it would 
secure as prompt a disposition of them as can be reasonably expected. 

As to the payment of interest as a part of the damages and costs in 
these collectors’ suits, I think the existing law needs amendment. In 
my opinion, the law should be so amended as to provide for the pay¬ 
ment of interest on the damages recovered or found due from the time 


614 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the exaction of duty on which the damages are based up to the date of 
the payment thereof, and for the payment of such interest, as a part of 
such damages, and at the time such damages are paid, subject to the 
exception that no interest should be allowed during the time that the 
plaintiffs are guilty of gross laches in prosecuting their claim; or, if 
the same can be collected without prosecution, in collecting the same. 

With my present views on the subject, it does not seem to me that 
there is any necessity for a new tribunal to try judicially questions 
growing out of rates of external or internal taxation levied by the ex¬ 
ecutive when tax payers are dissatisfied. The existing judicial system, 
in my opinion, is sufficient in the case of questions growing out of in¬ 
ternal taxation, and, with the plan suggested by me, can be made 
sufficient in the case of questions growing out of external taxation. 

Very respectfully, 

WILLIAM DORSHEIMER, 

United States Attorney. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Statement of issues in suits brought by importers against collectors of customs 
to recover alleged excessive duties and note pending in the southern district 
of New York ; the number of suits involving each of such issues ; the dates 
of issues of such suits ; and the suits tried, if any, which involved such 
issues, so far as ascertained. 

Acid, bromo-fluoresic. —Classified under the act of 1874 as an “ aniline 
dye, 7 ’ dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem; and 
under the act of 1883 as “ coal-tar color or dye, 77 dutiable at 35 per 
cent, ad valorem, but claimed to be an acid used for chemical or manu¬ 
facturing purposes, and free of duty. Number of suits, 9; not at issue, 2. 
The dates of issue in suit at isssue are various dates from July, 1879, 
to August, 1885. 

One suit, Matheson vs. Robertson, N. S., 8365, arising under the act 
of 1874, was tried February 7 and 8, 1884; verdict rendered for the 
plaintiffs. Trial reported to Department February 26, 1884. Suit now 
in United States Supreme Court. 

Acid, rosalic. —Classified under the act of 1883 as u coal-tar color; 77 
claimed to be an acid for chemical or manufacturing purposes, and free 
of duty. Number of suits, 13; not at issue, 7. All these suits were 
commenced since the beginning of this year, 1885. The dates of issue 
of those at issue are at different dates since March 20, 1885. 

Acid, picric .—Same question involved as in rosalic-acid suits. Num¬ 
ber of suits, 3; all commenced since January 16, 1885. Number not 
at issue, 2. Dates of issue in the one at issue, since June 13, 1885. 

Acid, carbolic. —Classified under the act of 1883 as a preparation of 
coal-tar, not color or dye, dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem; claimed 
to be free of duty as acids for chemical, medicinal, or manufacturing 
purposes. Number of suits, 3; at issue, 1. Date of issue, May 9,1885. 

Art, works of, statuary, &c. —Classified for duty under the act of 1874 
or 1883 as manufactures not otherwise provided for, composed of iron, 
&c., or other metals; claimed to be “ statuary, 7 7 dutiable at 10 percent, 
ad valorem, under act of 1874, or dutiable at 30 per cent, ad valorem, 
under the act of 1883. Number of suits, 71; not at issue, 14.' Dates of 
issue of those at issue, from November, 1881, to April, 1885. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


<>15 


Antiquities , collection of. —Paintings, framed, classified under the act 
of 1874 as “paintings,” the frames, as manufactures of wood. Silver¬ 
ware, classified under the act of 1883 as manufactures of silver; bronze 
vases, tripod, and chest, classified under act of 1883 as manufactures 
of bronze, &c.; all claimed to be “collection of antiquities, specially 
imported and not for sale,” free of duty. Number of suits, 3. Date, 
of issue, September 10, 1883; March 15, 1884; and February 2, 1885. 
respectively. 

Albums. —Classified under act of 1874 or act of 1883 as manufactures 
of their materials of chief value; claimed to be dutiable as manufact¬ 
ures of paper not otherwise provided for, or as “blank-books,” or as 
“books.” Number of suits, 5, Dates of issue in two suits, May 28, 
1882, and May 5, 1885, respectively. The other three suits not at issue. 

Articles made on f rames. —(1) Classified under section 2 of the act of 
March 2, 1867, as manufactures of wool, or as manufactures of worsted; 
claimed to be dutiable, under section 22 of the act of March 2, 1861, and 
section 13 of the act of July 14, 1862, as “articles made on frames;” 
(2) similar question under act of 1874; (3) or classified under the act 
of 1874 as worsted wearing-apparel, and claimed to be dutiable under 
that act as “articles made on frames,” the act of August 7, 1882, (22 
U. S. Stats, at Large, page 301,) amending the paragraph beginning 
with the words “clothing, ready-made, and wearing-apparel” of Schedule 
M, section 2504, by inserting the word “wool,” being inoperative, or 
illegally enacted and void. Number of suits, 172; not at issue, 18. 
Dates of issue of suits at issue, from April 27, 1876, to April 29, 1885. 

Krause vs. Arthur, N. S., 3684, arose under laws prior to act of 1874. 
In that case a verdict was rendered for defendent. 

Yietor vs. Arthur, N. S., 4192, arising under act of 1874, was tried 
and verdict rendered for plaintiffs. Case subsequently affirmed by Su¬ 
preme Court and acquiesced in by the Department. Both of these cases 
were reported November 13, 1877. 

Yietor vs. Arthur, N. S., 2887, arising under law prior to act of 1874, 
was tried in 1883, and verdict rendered for plaintiff. Trial reported De¬ 
cember 24, 1883. This case has been taken to United States Supreme 
Court. 

Burlaps. —Classified under act of 1874, or under act of 1883, as ducks, 
canvas, padding, &c., or manufactures of flax; claimed to be dutiable 
at the rate of duty imposed on “burlaps.” Number of suits, 8; not at 
issue, 7. Date of issue of the one at issue, May 2, 1885. 

Buttons. —Classified under act of 1883 as manufactures of brass, &c.; 
claimed to be dutiable as “buttons,” or as gilt or plated articles, &c. 
Number of suits, 43; not at issue, 32. Dates of issue of those at issue, 
from September 22, 1884, to July 10, 1885. 

Baskets. —Classified as a manufacture of silk under the act of 1874 
and the act of February 8, 1875, (18 U. S. Stats, at Large, 307, ) and 
claimed to be dutiable as baskets. Number of suits, 1. Date of issue, 
May 28, 1882. 

Dye-wood decoction , or dye-wood extracts. —Classified under act of 1883 
as colors not specially enumerated or provided for, dutiable at 25 per 
cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem, 
as extracts and decoctions of dye logwood and other dye-woods. Num¬ 
ber of suits, 1. Date of issue, February 11, 1885. 

Plush bags. —Classified for duty under acts of 1874 and February 3, 
1885, as manufacture of silk; claimed to be dutiable as a manufacture 


616 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


of cotton not otherwise provided for. Number of suits pending, 1. 
Date of issue, February 28, 1882. 

Balls , woollen tennis. —Classified under the provision in Schedule L of 
the act of 1874, for “all manufactures of every description made wholly 
or in part of wool,” dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad 
valorem; claimed to be dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem, as “toys.” 
Number of suits, 2. Dates of issue, October 4 and November 27, 1882, 
respectively. 

Bindings or galloons. —Classified under act of 1874 as galloons wrought 
by hand or braided by machinery, made of wool or worsted, &c., duti¬ 
able at 50 cents per pound, and in addition 50 per cent, ad valorem; 
claimed to be dutiable as manufactures of worsted, &c., dutiable at 50 
cents per pound, and in addition 35 per cent, ad valorem. Number of 
suits, 19; not at issue, 3. Dates of issue in those at issue, from Sep¬ 
tember 7, 1883, to June 16, 1885. 

Bone-ash charcoal , (hones burned , calcined , ground , or steamed.) —Classi¬ 
fied under the act of 1874 as “black of bone,” or under the act of 1883 
as “bone black; ” claimed to be free of duty, as bones burned, calcined, 
&e. Number of suits, 23; not at issue, 1. Dates of issue in those at 
issue, from January 6, 1882, to September 23, 1885. 

This issue has been tried three times. 

In Wardener vs. Bobertson, N. S., 8363; verdict for plaintiff; paid; 
trial reported December 24, 1883. In Peters vs. Bobertson, N. S,, 8053; 
verdict for defendant; trial reported February 21, 1884. 

In Harrison vs. Bobertson, N. S., 7454, there have been two trials. 
First trial resulted in verdict for plaintiff. First trial reported January 
31, 1885; case retried, resulting in a verdict for defendant. Second 
trial reported June 7, 1885; case taken by writ of error to United 
States Supreme Court. 

Beans. —Classified under the act of 1883 as “garden-seeds,” dutiable 
at 20 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be free of duty, and if not 
free, dutiable as “vegetables,” at 10 per cent, ad valorem. Number 
of suits, 44; not at issue, 41. Dates of issue of the three suits at issue, 
September 24, 1884; March 21, 1885; and January 23, 1885, respect¬ 
ively. 

Windmuller vs. Bobertson, N. S., 9295, tried in 1885. Verdict for 
plaintiffs on claim that beans, under act of 1883, were not dutiable at 
a greater rate than 10 per cent., and Department acquiesced in this de¬ 
cision. 

Water-colors. —Classified under the act of 1874, under the provision 
for “aniline dyes and colors, by whatever name known,” dutiable at 
50 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem ; claimed to be dutiable 
at 25 per cent, ad valorem, as “moist water-colors used in the manu¬ 
facture of paper-hangings.” Number of suits, 1. Date of issue,Octo¬ 
ber 25, 1883. 

Colors and coloring-matter. —Classified under act of 1874 as “aniline 
dyes,” dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 35 percent, ad valorem; 
claimed to be dutiable under the same act, at 20 per cent, ad valorem, 
as manufactured articles not otherwise provided for. (Section 2516, 
Bevised Statutes.) Number of suits, 39; not at issue, 4. Dates of issue 
in suits at issue, from April 25, 1879, to September 22, 1884. 

One suit, Pickhardt vs. Merritt, N. S., 5798, involving the rate of 
duty on certain of these colors, was tried in January and February, 1884, 
resulting in verdict for defendant. Trial reported February 25, 1884. 
Case taken to Supreme Court by plaintiff. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 617 


Bonnets, hats, &e., for men , women, (fee.—Classified under act of 1883, 
at various rates of duty, as manufactures of worsted, wool, &c., or as 
knit goods; claimed to be dutiable, under Schedule N of the same act, 
at 30 per cent, ad valorem, as bonnets, hats, &c. Number of suits, 6; 
not at issue, 3. Dates of issue in suits at issue, August 16, 1884; April 
29, 1885; and September 23, 1885, respectively. 

Emery ore.— On shipboard in port, but unentered July 1, 1883; clas¬ 
sified for duty under act of 1874 as emery ore, at $6 per ton; claimed 
to be free under act of 1883, as emery ore. Number of suits, 1. Date 
of issue, December 18, 1884. 

Cotton linings.—Being a small part of completely manufactured wool 
caps; classified for duty under act of 1874, at 50 cents per pound, as 
manufactures of wool; claimed to be dutiable under same act, at 35 
per cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of cotton not otherwise pro¬ 
vided for. Number of suits, 1. Date of issue, March 4, 1884. 

Chimney lamps. —Classified for duty under act of 1874, at 40 per cent, 
ad valorem, as articles of glas, cut; claimed to be dutiable under same 
act at 35 per cent., as plain, &c., not cut. Similar question under act 
of 1883. Number of suits, 7 ; number not at issue, 1. Dates of issue 
in suits at issue, from September 7, 1880, to September 10, 1883. 

One suit, Schneider vs. Kobertson, N. S., 8172, tried December, 1884. 
Verdict for plaintiffs. Trial reported December 13,1884. To be taken 
to the Supreme Court. 

Colcothar , dry. —Classified for duty under act of 1874, as u painters, 
colors’ 7 at 25 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable under same 
act as colcothar, dry, or oxide of iron, and free of duty. Number of 
suits, 13. Dates of issue from November 30, 1881, to August 16, 1884. 

One suit, Hill vs. Bobertson, N. S., 8173; tried December, 1883. Ver¬ 
dict for defendant. Trial reported December 24, 1883. Costs paid by 
plaintiffs and suit discontinued. 

Compositions, glass and paste, not set.— Classified under act of 1874, as 
imitations of jet, dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be 
dutiable under same act at 10 per cent ad valorem, as u compositions 
of glass or paste,” not set. Number of suits, 7. Dates of issue, from 
January 6, 1882, to June 12, 1884. 

Foreign moneys, such as u Chinese taels , 7 7 pesos of United States of Co¬ 
lombia, i ‘ Mexican dollar , 77 u Austrian florin , 7 7 &c. —Value estimated in 
silver dollars for purpose of duties; claimed that value should be es¬ 
timated in gold dollars. Number of suits, 35. Dates of issue, from 
March 7, 1876, to March 17, 1884. 

Cryder vs. Merritt, N. S., 6477; issue as to Chinese tael. Decided 
in favor of plaintiffs. Trial reported December 17, 1884; acquiesced in 
by Department. 

Hadden vs. Merritt, 5936; issue as to Mexican dollar. Decided in 
favor of defendant. Trial reported November 1, 1880. Case taken by 
plaintiffs to Supreme Court, and affirmed by that court. 

Embroidery and embroidered articles. —Classified under the act of 1874 
for duty at various rates of duty as 44 manufactures of worsted, 77 &c.; 
claimed under the same act to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as 
embroidery, or manufactures of cotton. Classified under the act of 1883 
at various rates of duty under various classifications; claimed under 
the same act to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as embroideries, 
or manufactures of linen embroidered, &c., or manufactures of cotton. 
Number of suits, 45; not at issue, 25. Dates of issue in suits at issue, 
from May 20, 1876, to June 13, 1885. 


618 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Egg-yolks .—Classified under the act of 1883 for duty at 20 per cent, 
ad valorem, as a non-enumerated article; claimed under same act to be 
free of duty under the provision for 44 articles in a crude state used in 
dyeing or tanning,” or for “eggs,” or for “albumen,” &c. Number 
of suits, 6 ; not at issue, 5. Date of suit at issue, March 25, 1885. 

Enamelled paintings. —Classified for duty under act of 1874 at 45 per 
cent, ad valorem, as “ manufactures of copper;” claimed to be dutiable 
under same act at 20 per cent, ad valorem, as non-enumerated articles. 
Number of suits, 1. Date of issue, July 13, 1882. 

Eosine. —Classified under the act of 1874 as an 4 4 aniline dye, ’ 1 at 50 cents 
per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable under 
the same act as a non-enumerated article, at 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
Number of suits, 5. Dates of issue, from December 9, 1882, to Septem¬ 
ber 13, 1884. 

Granite , dressed and polished. —Classified under the act of 1861 or 
1874 as 44 articles manufactured,” &e., not enumerated, at 20 per cent, 
ad valorem; claimed under the act of 1870 or 1874 to be dutiable at 
$1.50 per ton, as granite and monumental and building stone, or that 
the same is so dutiable by virtue of the similitude clause. Number of 
suits, 20. Dates of issue, from May 1, 1872, to January 30, 1882. 

Dodd vs. Arthur, N. S., 1907, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial 
reported April 13, 1878. 

Coleman vs. Murphy, N. S., 1667, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial 
reported January 29, 1874. 

Moffitt vs. Arthur, N. S., 4727, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial 
reported December 18, 1883. This last case, the plaintiffs state, will 
be taken to the Supreme Court. 

Handkerchiefs , embroidered. —Classified under Schedule C of act of 
1874 as 44 handkerchiefs,” dutiable at 40 per cent, ad valorem ; claimed 
to be dutiable under Schedule M of the same act at 35 per cent, ad va¬ 
lorem, as articles embroidered *or tamboured by hand, &c. Same 
question under the act of 1883. Number of suits, 12 ; not at issue, 7. 
Dates of issue, from July 20, 1877, to August 31, 1885. 

Iron ore. —Classified under act of 1874 as mineral substance in a 
crude state not otherwise provided for, at 20 per cent, ad valorem; 
claimed under same act to be dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem, as 
articles unmanufactured, non-enumerated. Number of suits, 7. Dates 
of issue, from January, 1880, to March, 1884. 

Marvel vs. Merritt, N. S., 6077, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial 
reported November 7, 1881. Taken by plaintiffs to Supreme Court. 

Leaf-tobacco. —Classified for duty under act of 1883 as leaf-tobacco, 
of which 80 per cent, not stemmed, at 75 cents per pound; claimed 
to be dutiable under the same act at 35 cents per pound, under the pro¬ 
vision for “all other tobacco in leaf, unmanufactured and not stemmed.” 
Number of suits, 4; not at issue, 1. Dates of issue in suits at issue, 
February and April, 1885. 

Inon nail-rods. —Classified for duty under act of 1874 as 4 4 bar iron, 
rolled or hammered,” &e., at 1] cents per pound; claimed to be duti¬ 
able under same act, under the provision for 4 4 all other descriptions of 
rolled or hammered iron, not otherwise provided for,” 11 cents per 
pound. Number of suits, 9 ; not at issue, 2. Dates of issue in suits at 
issue, from April 22, 1882, to August 27, 1884. 

Filtering-paper .—Classified for duty under act of 1883 as paper not 
specially enumerated, dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valoren; claimed to 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 619 


be dutiable under same act as a manufacture of paper not specially 
enumerated or provided for, at 15 per cent, ad valorem. Number of 
suits, 3. Date of issue, April, 1885. 

Lava tips. —Classified for duty under act of 1883 at 55 per cent, ad • 
valorem, under tlie provision for “all other earthernware, &c., com¬ 
posed of eartliy or mineral substances, not specially enumerated or pro¬ 
vided for; 77 claimed to be dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under the 
provision for brown earthernware, &c., not ornamented. Number of 
suits, 3; not at issue, 2. Date of issue of suit at issue, May 1, 1885. 

Magnesia , calcined. —Classified for duty at 50 per cent, ad valorem, 
under the provision for “proprietary medicines” contained in the act 
of 1874; claimed to be dutiable under same act at 12 cents per pound, 
as “calcined magnesia.” Same question under act of 1883. Number 
of suits, 7. Dates of issue, from November 17, 1879, to July 9, 1885. 

Ferguson vs. Arthur, N. S., 4842, tried, and verdict rendered for de¬ 
fendant. Trial reported November 17, 1879. Case taken to Supreme 
Court by plaintiffs. 

Mousseline delaines. —All worsted dress-goods, classified for duty at 
24 per cent, ad valorem, as “delaines,” under the act of 1846, as 
amended by the act of 1857; claimed to be dutiable under the same 
acts at 19 per cent, ad valorem, as ‘ ‘ manufactures of worsted. 77 Number 
of suits, 32. Dates of issue, from August, 1857, to November, 1861. 

Hutton vs. Schell, O. S., 339, tried in 1859 and 1873, resulting in 
disagreement of jury; a third trial, in 1879, resulting in a verdict for 
plaintiffs. 

Whiting vs. Schell, O. S., 328, tried in 1884; verdict for plaintiffs. 
Trial reported December 27, 1884; case before the Department. 

Mineral waters. —Classified under act of 1874 as “artificial mineral 
water,” dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, and in addition 3 cents 
per bottle; claimed to be “natural mineral water, 77 and under same 
act to be free of duty. Number of suits, 7. Dates of issue, from October 
23, 1879, to August 3, 1881. 

Most-favored-nation clause. —Various articles classified for duty as pro¬ 
vided by the acts in force at the time of their importation; claimed by 
virtue of the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty between the 
countries from which such articles were imported, and the Hawaiian 
treaty of January 30, 1875, to be free of duty. Number of suits, 29; 
not at issue, 17. Dates of issue in suits at issue, from September 6,1882, 
to September 17, 1884. 

Bartram vs. Robertson, N. S., 7996, tried; verdict for defendant. 
Trial reported February 16, 1883. Case taken to Supreme Court by 
plaintiffs. This case arose prior to the act of 1883. In the case not at 
issue the plaintiffs rely on the eleventh section of the act of 1883. 

Steel-rail crop-ends. —Classified under act of 1883 at 45 per cent, ad 
valorem, under general provision in Schedule C for “steel not specially 
enumerated or provided for in this act; 77 claimed to be dutiable at 20 
per cent, ad valorem, as a non-enumerated article. Number of suits, 

2; not at issue, 2. 

Pipe bowls , stems, &c. —Classified for duty under act of 1874 as pipes, 
smokers 7 articles, &c.; claimed under same act to be dutiable as man¬ 
ufactures of wood. Similar question under act ot 1883. Number of 
suits, 4; not at issue, 3. Date of issue in suits at issue, June 10, 1885. 

Paper for printing photographs. —Classified under act of 1874 as “manu¬ 
factures of paper, or of which paper is a component material, not otherwise 


620 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


provided for;” claimed to be dutiable as “ paper, sized or glued, suitable 
only for printing-paper.” Similar question arising under act of 1883. 
Number of suits, 18; not at issue, 3. Dale of issue, from December 29, 
1882, to September 23, 1885. 

Paper parasols. —Classified under act of 1874 as umbrellas, dutiable 
at 45 per cent, ad valorem; claimed under same act to be dutiable at 35 
per cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of paper or wood not otherwise 
provided for. Number of suits pending, 9. Dates of issue, from Feb¬ 
ruary 14, 1880, to January 13, 1883. 

Yaye vs. Merritt, N. S., 6808, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial re¬ 
ported December 19, 1884. 

Printing-paper. —Classified for duty under the provision of the act of 
1874 for “all other paper not otherwise provided for,” dutiable at 35 
per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable under the provision of 
the same act for paper, “printing, unsized, used for books and news¬ 
papers exclusively,” dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem. Similar 
questiop under the act of 1883. Number of suits. 14; not at issue, 3. 
Dates of issue of suits at issue, from June 29, 1881, to July 8, 1884. 

Lawrence vs. Merritt, N. S., 7026, tried; verdict for defendant. 
Trial reported December 24, 1883. Taken to Supreme Court by 
plaintiffs. 

Printed matter .—Classified for duty, under act of 1874, as manu¬ 
factures of paper, or of which jjaper is the component material of chief 
value, dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable, 
under the same act, as printed matter, at 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
Number of suits, 4. Dates of issue, from July 11, 1877, to November 
30, 1881. 

Saxony dress-goods. —Classified for duty at 30 per cent, ad valorem, 
under the act of March 2, 1861, as manufactures of worsted, and in 
addition at 2 cents a square yard, under the provision contained in 
the act of July 14, 1862, for delaines, &c., and all goods of similar de¬ 
scription not exceeding in value 40 cents per square yard; claimed 
that, while these goods were dutiable, under the act of 1861, at 30 per 
cent, ad valorem, they were not. under the act of 1862, dutiable at 2 
cents a square yard, but were, under that act, dutiable at 5 per cent, 
ad valorem, as manufactures of worsted, or of which worsted is a 
component material not otherwise provided for. Number of suits, 
32. Dates of issue, from February, 1866, to February, 1873. 

A case involving this issue was tried in 1867, and a verdict rendered 
for defendant. In the same year another case, Schneider vs. Barney, 
O. S., 3015, was tried, and a verdict rendered for plaintiffs. Subse¬ 
quently the Supreme Court ordered a new trial. A second trial re¬ 
sulted in a verdict for defendant. The Supreme Court again ordered a 
new trial, and a third trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for de¬ 
fendant. The third trial was reported November 29, 1879, and at the 
October term for 1884 the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. 

Cotton hosiery and other cotton goods. - -Classified for duty at 24 per 
cent, ad valorem under the act of 1846, as amended by the act of 1857, 
as manufactures composed wholly of cotton which are bleached; claimed 
to be dutiable at 19 per cent, ad valorem. &c., under the act of 1846, 
as amended by the act of 1857, where these articles are specifically 
enumerated. Number of suits, 15. Dates of issue, from May, 1864, to 
January, 1871. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 621 


One case, Cochran vs. Schell, O. S., 1865, as to cotton laces and in- 
sertings, tried in 1882; verdict and judgment rendered for defendant. 
Trial reported May 16, 1882. Affirmed by Supreme Court in 1883. 

One case, Bursdorff vs. Barney, O. S., 2185, as cotton hosiery, tried; 
verdict and judgment tor defendant. Trial reported November 1, 
1880. Case affirmed by Supreme Court at October term for 1884. 

Prime or drawback allowed by laws of France to French manu¬ 
facturers who exported to the United States certain worsted goods 
made by them. Duty was levied under the act of March 3,1851, upon 
the market value at which the goods sold for consumption in France, 
including the “ prime; 77 claimed the prime was not dutiable— i. e., that 
the market value for the purposes of duty was the French market value 
less the prime. Number of suits, 3. Dates of issue, June, 1860: April, 
1861; and April, 1864. 

One suit, Hutton vs. Schell, O. S., 625, tried; verdict for defendant. 
Trial reported November 12, 1880; suit paid. 

Plaid woollen flannels. —Classified for duty under the act of 1846, as 
amended by act of 1857, at 24 per cent, ad valorem, as “manufactures of 
wool; 7 7 claimed to be dutiable under same acts at 19 per cent, ad valorem, 
as u flannels. 7 7 Number of suits, 3. Dates of issue, December, 1858, 
and May, 1864. 

Nets, spot-nets , &c., silk and cotton. —Classified for duty under the act 
of June 30, 1864, or under the act of 1874, at 60 per cent, ad valorem, 
as “silk laces; 77 claimed to be dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem un¬ 
der the provision in the act of 1864, or the act of 1874, for manufact¬ 
ures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, 
not otherwise provided for. Number of suits, 51. Dates of issue, No¬ 
vember 20, 1873, to October 10, 1878. 

Drew vs. Grinnell, N. S., 898, tried in 1879; jury disagreed. In 
1880 again tried, with same result. In 1881 again tried, and verdict 
for defendant. Trial reported April 16, 1881. Case taken that year to 
Supreme Court by plaintiffs. 

Various nets , cotton. —Classified for duty under the act of 1883 as “cot¬ 
ton laces; 77 claimed to be dutiable under same act as manufactures of 
cotton not otherwise provided for. Number of suits, 5; not at issue, 
2. Dates of suits at issue, from September 23,1884, to August 25,1885. 

Mirror-plates. —Classified for duty under Schedule B of the act of 
1874, or Schedule B of the act of 1883, at various rates of duty as look¬ 
ing-glass plates ; claimed to be dutiable (under the act of 1874 or 1883) 
under the provision for articles of glass, cut, engraved, &c. Number 
of suits, 9 ; not at issue, 6. Dates of issue in suits at issue, from Janu¬ 
ary 10, 1885, to March 25, 1885. 

Lead-ashes. —Classified for duty under act of 1874 at 1? cents per 
pound, as lead ore or as old scrap-lead fit only to be remanufactured; 
claimed to be dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem, as a non-enumerated 
raw or unmanufactured article. Number of cases, 1. Issue joined 
July 12, 1880; one case tried, and verdict for defendant. Trial re¬ 
ported December 24, 1883. 

Ivory keys for pianos and organs. —Classified under acts of 1874 and 
March 3, 1883, as ivory veneering; assessed as manufactures of ivory, 
at 35 per cent, and 30 per cent, ad valorem. Claimed to be parts of 
musical instruments, dutiable at 30 per cent, and 25 per cent, ad valo¬ 
rem, under old and new tariffs, respectively. Number of suits, 1. Issue 
joined September 23, 1885. 


622 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Steel blooms. —Classified as manufactures of steel, and duty assessed 
at 45 per cent, ad valorem. Defendants claim duty should be assessed 
at rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem, Number of suits, 23; not at issue, 2. 

This issue has been tried in Downing vs. Robertson, N. S., 7977, and 
the plaintiffs recovered a verdict in their favor, in which verdict the 
Department acquiesced. Reported to Secretary of Treasury February 
27, 1883. Issue -has been joined in these suits at various times from 
June, 1882, to February, 1885. 

Steel rods. —The plaintiffs protest against certain duties alleged to 
have been assessed upon the costs of freight of various steel rods from 
the inland place of manufacture to the seaboard, and claim that under 
section 7, act March 3, 1883, the same were not dutiable. Number of 
suits, 12; at issue, 4. 

Jewelry. —Pins, buckles, bonnet-pins with solid heads, brooches, and 
clasps of brass and iron, &e. Classified under acts of 1874 and 1883 as 
manufactures of the different metals whereof said articles were consti¬ 
tuted, and duty assessed at 35 per cent, ad valorem under the tariff of 
1874, and at 45 per cent, ad valorem under the tariff of 1883. Plain¬ 
tiffs claim that these articles are only liable to a duty of 25 per cent, ad 
valorem, as jewelry, under the law of 1874 and 1883. Number of suits, 
62; at issue, 48; not at issue, 14. 

The dates of issue in suits at issue are at various times from December, 
1874, to September, 1885. As to some of these articles, under the act of 
1874, the court has decided in favor of the plaintiffs in cases of Heclit 
vs. Arthur and Holzinger vs. Arthur, and the Department has acqui¬ 
esced in such decisions. (See Synopsis, 5103 and 5315.) In nearly all 
these cases questions of fact remain to be determined. 

Glucose — grape-sugar. —Classified under act of 1874 as a “non-enumer- 
ated manufactured article,” and assessed at 20 per cent, ad valorem; 
claim only dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem under similitude clause, 
as “assimilating to gum substitute or burnt starch. Classified under 
act of 1883 as “liquor-coloring,” assessed at 50 per cent, ad valorem, by 
assimilation to “brandy-coloring;” claimed to be glucose and grape 
sugar, dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, 30 ; at 
issue, 29 ; not at issue, 1. Issue has been joined in suits at issue at va¬ 
rious dates from October, 1880, to September, 1885. 

Arnson vs. Merritt, 6534, tried, and verdict for defendant. Reported 
February 4, 1885, to Secretary of Treasury. 

Window-glass. —The method of assessing duty is here in dispute— 
not the rate of duty. Duty is assessed on the weight, estimated on the 
basis of the actual sizes and quantities of the examination packages, 
while the importers claim duty should be assessed on the commercial 
standard weight of the packages. There is no question as to the clas¬ 
sification ; cases arise both under the old and new tariff. Number of 
suits, 24; at issue, 19 ; not at issue, 5. Dates of issue, at various times 
between May, 1884, and September, 1885. 

Carpets , rugs , &c. —Duty was assessed at 10 per cent., under section 2501, 
Revised Statutes, tariff of 1874, as articles, goods, or wares of the 
growth or product of countries east of Good Hope, imported from places 
west of Good Hope. Plaintiffs claim goods were bought east of the 
Cape of Good Hope, but protest against a discriminating duty of 10 per 
cent., because they were brought from the countries where they were 
produced, and are only transshipped in England or France. Number of 
suits, 10; at issue, 9; not at issue, 1. Issue was joined in the suits at 
issue at dates varying from March, 1881, to October, 1884. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 623 


Jewels , (precious stones)— Dutiable at 10 per cen tn; classified under tariff 
of 1874 as jewels or precious stones. The value of this merchandise 
was advanced over 10 per cent., upon a reappraisement thereof, under 
section 2930, Revised Statutes. The additional duty of 20 per cent, 
ad valorem, under section 2900, was, therefore, assessed. The recovery 
ot the penal duty is the object of this suit. There is no question as to 
the duty assessed upon the merchandise as precious stones. Number 
of suits, 1. Issue joined January 15, 1884. 

Philosophical instruments , opera-glasses , &c. —Classified under act of 
March 3, 1883, as manufactures of brass and glass, assessed at 45 per 
cent, ad valorem ; claimed to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as 
philosophical instruments. Number of suits, 16; at issue, 5; not at 
issue, 11. Dates of issue are between January, 1885, and August 25, 
1885. 

Fossil meal. —Classified under act of March 3, 1883, as a manufactured 
article not otherwise provided for, and a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem 
was assessed; claimed to be manufactured earth, dutiable at $3 per ton, 
and natural or crude clay, dutiable at $1.50 per ton. Number of suits, 
2; at issue, (issued joined, December 6, 1884,) 1; not at issue, 1. 

Fans. —Classified under act of 1874 as manufacturers of silk, assessed 
at 60 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be fans, dutiable at 35 per 
cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, 2; at issue, (January 2, 1885,) 1; 
not at issue, 1. 

Wool waste. —Classified under act of 1874 as scoured wool costing 25 
cents or less per pound, and duty assessed at 30 cents per pound and 
33 per cent, ad valorem; claim, “wool waste,’ 1 dutiable at 12 cents 
per pound. Number of suits, 1. Issue joined January 25, 1884. 

Gilling-twine. —Classified under act of March 3, 1883, as flax thread, 
assessable at 40 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be gilling-twine, 
dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, ‘3; none at issue. 

Skins. —Classified under act of 1874 as sheepskins with the wool on, 
tanned, not otherwise provided for, 25 per cent, ad valorem; claim 
under same act that a duty of 20 per cent, only should be assessed, as 
skins, dressed and finished, of all kinds, not otherwise provided for. 
Number of suits, 3. All at issue, on December 14, 1876; April 3, 1877 ; 
and April 4, 1877, respectively. 

Shirtings. —Classified as manufactures of silk, silk chief value, under 
act of 1874, and assessed with a duty of 60 per cent, ad valorem, and 
discriminating duty of 10 per cent. Plaintiffs protest against discrim¬ 
inating duty, as goods were manufactured in England, although materia] 
did come from east of Good Hope. Number of suits, 2. Both at 
issue, April 16, 1881, and October 29, 1884. 

Bosaries. —Classified under acts of 1874 and 1883 as beads, and a duty 
of 50 per cent, ad valorem assessed upon them. 

Plaintiffs claim that 35 per cent, and 40 per cent, ad valorem is the 
right rate of duty, and claim they should be classified as manufactures 
of different metals, wood, &c. Number of suits, 14; at issue, 10; not 
at issue, 4. Issue joined at dates between March, 1882, and September. 
i884. 

Benziger vs. Robertson, N. S., 7749, tried; verdict for defendant. 
Trial reported December 24, 1883. Case taken to Supreme Court by 
plaintiff. 

Velours chappe. —Classified under act of 1864 as silk and cotton vel¬ 
vets, and a duty of 60 per cent, ad valorem was assessed; claimed to 


624 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


be velours chappe, manufactures not otherwise provided for, composed 
of mixed materials, in part of cotton, &c., and only liable to duty at 
30 per cent, ad valorem; also claim reduction of 10 per cent, of said 
duty under act of June 6, 1872. Number of suits, 4; at issue, 4. Dates 
of issue, between June, 1873, and July, 1877. 

Oelberman vs. Arthur, N. S., 2830, tried; verdict for defendant. 
Trial reported October 23, 1876. 

Shawls. —Classified under act of 1874 as worsted cashmere shawls, 
ready-made, and assessed at 50 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad 
valorem, as shawls, or as ready-made wearing apparel, claim should 
be assessed at 50 per cent, and 35 per cent, ad valorem, under same sec-. 
tion of the tariff, as woollen shawls. Number of suits, 32; not at issue, 
17. Issue joined at dates between January 11, 1877, and September, 
1884. 

Strauss vs. Merritt, N. S., 6881, tried; verdict for defendant. Re¬ 
ported December 13, 1884, 

Amber. —Classified under act of 1883 as a non enumerated manufact¬ 
ured article, and a duty assessed at 20 per cent, ad valorem; claimed 
to be amber, and free. Number of suits, 1; not at issue, 1. 

Rubber goods. —Classified under act of 1883 as toys, assessed at 35 per 
cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable at 25 per cent., as articles of 
rubber. Number of suits, 3; at issue, 2; not at issue, 1. Issue joined 
June 5, 1885, and June 10, 1885. 

Rubber webbing. —Classified underact of 1883 as rubber webbing, as¬ 
sessed at 30 cents per pound and 50 per cent.; claimed to be dutiable 
at 30 per cent, only, as India-rubber fabrics. Number of suits, 5; at 
issue (June 16, 1885,) 1; not at issue, 4. 

Silk and cotton shirts , drawers , &c. —Goods classified for duty under 
act of June 30, 1864, at 60 per cent, ad valorem, as silk shirts, drawers; 
claimed to be diftiable under act of March 2, 1861, as modified by act 
July 14, 1862, at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as articles made on frames. 
Classified for duty at 60 per cent., under the provision for silk vestings 
and pongees contained in Schedule H of the act of 1874; claimed to 
contain 25 per cent, or over in value of cotton, flax, wool, or worsted, 
and by virtue of the act of February 8, 1875, and act of 1874, to be duti¬ 
able as manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material 
of chief value, at 50 per cent, ad valorem, or classified for duty at 60 
per cent., under the act of February 8, 1875; claimed by virtue of that 
act and act of 1874, to be dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem, as manu¬ 
factures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief 
value. Classified for duty under Schedule H, act 1874, under the pro¬ 
visions for silk vestings, pongees, &c., at 60 per cent, ad valorem; 
claimed to be dutiable under same schedule as manufactures of silk, or 
of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise 
provided for, at 50 per cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, 236; not 
at issue, 31. Dates of issue are between January 12, 1876, and Febu- 
ary 2, 1885. 

Fleitman vs. Arthur, N. S., 4707, involving question whether silk 
and cotton hat-bands were dutiable at 60 per cent., under act of 1874 
and act of February 8, 1876, as containing less than 25 per cent, of cotton, 
or whether by virtue of these acts they were dutiable, as claimed by 
plaintiff, at 50 per cent., on the ground that they contained 25 per cent, 
of cotton or over, was tried and verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. 
Trial reported November 26, 1880. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY .OF THE TREASURY. 625 


There is a question of fact in all these cases, whether the goods in 
suit contain less or more than 25 per cent, of cotton, &c., even after the 
principle of law has been decided for estimating value of cotton. 

Plaques. —Classified under act of 1874 as manufactures of earthen¬ 
ware or porcelain, copper, &c.; claimed to be dutiable under same act 
at 10 per cent, ad valorem, as paintings not otherwise provided for. 
Number of suits, 10; not at issue, 1. Dates of issue, from April 28, 
1881, to June 1, 1883. 

Tiffany vs. Merritt, N. S., 6367, was tried and verdict rendered for 
plaintiff on this issue. Trial reported November 7, 1881. The prin¬ 
ciples decided in this case were acquiesced in by the Department. Ques¬ 
tions of fact still remain to be ascertained. 

Pins. —Classified under act of 1883 as manufactures of steel, &c.. not 
specially enumerated or provided for; claimed to be dutiable as pins, 
solid head or otherwise, and if not so dutiable, dutiable at the rates per 
pound. Number of suits, 10one suit at issue, August 28, 1885. 

Fancy articles, consisting of boxes, inkstands, watch-stands, pocket-books, 
mirrors, clasps, buckles, lockets, pirn, t See. —Classified for duty under act 
’74 and ’83 as manufactures of silk and paper, manufactures of glass 
and iron and brass and iron, manufactures of horn, manufactures of 
metals, &c.; claimed to be dutiable as jewelry, inkstands, &c., or under 
the provision for card-cases, pocket-books, &c., or similar articles, or 
as gift ware, &c. Number of suits, 16; not at issue, 8. Dates of issue 
in suits at issue, from September 10, 1883, to October 13, 1884. 

Linen laces. —Classified for duty under acts of 1874 and 1883 as manu¬ 
factures of flax ; claimed to be dutiable as thread lace under acts of 
1874, and as flax or linen lace under act of 1883. Number of suits, 74; 
not at issue, 9. Dates of issue, from March 6, 1877, to January 2,1885. 

McBurnie vs. Robertson, N. S., 8299, was tried in 1882, and a verdict 
was rendered for plaintiffs. Trial reported February 4, 1885. Depart¬ 
ment acquiesced in the decision. 

Manufactures of hair, calf-hair, and cotton and goat-hair and cotton .— 
Classified for duty under sixth section of act of June 30, 1864, as man¬ 
ufactures of cotton, and assessed with a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem ; 
claimed to be dutiable under second section, act June 2, 1872, at but 90 
per cent, of 35 per cent • or classified for duty under act of 1874 at 50 cents 
per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of wool of 
every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not otherwise pro¬ 
vided for; claimed to be manufactures of cotton, not otherwise provided 
for; or claimed to be dutiable by similitude clause as such manufactures 
of cotton; or claimed to be manufactures composed wholly or in part 
of worsted, hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals; claimed to be 
dutiable under provision for hair cloth, known as crinoline-cloth, and 
all other manufactures of hair, under the act of 1870; or claimed to be 
dutiable, by virtue of similitude clause, under the provision for manu¬ 
factures of fur, or, by virtue of similitude clause, to be dutiable at no 
more than the highest rate chargeable upon any of the component 
materials of said goods. Number of suits, 61; not at issue, 2. Dates 
of issue, from January 11, 1877, to October 27, 1882. 

Herman vs. Arthur, N. S., 2156, as to the 10 per cent, reduction, 
claimed by the plaintiff under act of 1872, was decided by Supreme 
Court, October, 1877, in favor of defendant. (96 U. S. Rep., p. 141.) 

Butterfield vs. Arthur, N. S., 4237, involving the claim of plaintiffs 
that they were dutiable under the provision for crinoline-cloth and 

40 A 


626 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


manufactures of hair, was decided in favor of defendant. (16 Blatch., 
216.) 

Butterfield vs. Arthur, N. S., 3482, involving the same question as 
last stated, was also decided in favor of the defendant, and reported 
January 23, 1880. 

Herman vs. Arthur, A. S., 5027, involving claim of the plaintiffs that 
their goods assimilated to manufactures of cotton not otherwise pro¬ 
vided for, dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem; decided in favor of the 
defendant. Trial reported December 24, 1883. Case taken to Supreme 
Court on appeal. 

Butterfield vs. Arthur, W. S., 3991, involving the plaintiffs’ claim 
that certain other of these goods were dutiable under provision for 
crinoline-cloth, was decided in favor of plaintiffs. Keported February 
21, 1883. 

. In Fox vs. Arthur, N. S., 4968, Supreme Court held that certain of 
these goods were dutiable by virtue of the similtude clause under act 
of 1874, as manufactures composed wholly or in part of the hair of 
the goat, and not, as claimed by the plaintiffs, as manufactures of cot¬ 
ton. (108 U. S. Rep., p. 125.) 

Hat materials and trimmings of silk and cotton, gimps of silk and cotton , 
feathers the manufacture of silk and cotton and feathers, &c. —Classified 
under acts of 1874, February 8, 1875, and 1883, as silk and cotton goods, 
or manufactures of silk and cotton, and assessed with a duty of 60 per 
cent, or 50 per cent, ad valorem under the old tariff, and at 50 per cent, 
ad valorem under the new ; claimed to be hat-trimmings or materials, 
dutiable at 30 per cent, under the old, and 20 per cent, under the new 
tariff, or else dutiable as manufactures of cotton, at 35 per cent., under 
both old and new tariffs. Number of suits, 139 ; not at issue, 53. Is¬ 
sues joined at dates between August, 1877, and September, 1885. 

Theatrical scenery and costumes , theatrical scenery , properties, and pro¬ 
fessional wardrobe ,—Classified under act of 1874 as manufactures of iiax 
and other material, fiax chief value, assessed with 40 per cent, ad 
valorem; manufactures of silk, cotton, and metal, at 60 per cent. ; 
manufactures of human hair and horse hair, 40 per cent. ; wearing-ap¬ 
parel, at 50 per cent., 40 per cent., and 35 per cent. ; claimed to be 
u wearing-apparel” in actual use and other personal effects, profes¬ 
sional implements, instruments and tools of trade, occupation, or em¬ 
ployment of persons arriving in the United States, and therefore free; 
classified under act of 1883 as manufactures of cotton, leather, wood, 
andiron, assessed at 35 per cent.; at 60 per cent, as manufactures of 
silk, and at 50 per cent, as manufactures of wool; claimed to be free 
as “professional implements and tools of trade.” Number of suits, 2; 
at issue, 2. Issue joined on October 1, 1881, and January 26, 1885. 

Cotton goods. —Manufactures of cotton, &c., classified under various 
provisions of the cotton sections, &c., of laws of ’74 and ’83 at dif¬ 
ferent rates of duty, and claimed to be dutiable under various other 
provisions of the cotton sections, &c. Number of suits, 96; not at 
issue, 44. Dates of issue, from June 8, 1876, to March 26, 1885. 

Newman vs. Arthur, N. S., 4671, involving the classification of cer¬ 
tain cotton Italians, was tried in 1880, and a verdict rendered for the 
defendant. Trial reported November 22, 1880. Affirmed by the Su¬ 
preme Court, (see 109 U. S. Rep., 132.) 

Butterfield vs. Merritt, N. S., 6679, involving the classification of 
certain other cotton goods, was tried in 1881. As to some of the goods 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 627 


ill suit a verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and as to others a verdict 
for defendant. Trial reported November 9, 1881; further report Mav 
24, 1882. J 

Charges and commissions. —Question arising under law of March 3, 
1881; fully reported to the Department July 29, 1885, and August 4, 
1885. Number of suits, about 90. 

Charges , &c .—Question arising under section 7, act of March 3, 1883; 
Numerous boxes, sacks, crates, coverings, &c., have been made a sub¬ 
ject of duty; claimed by the importers to be free of duty. Number of 
suits, 478; not at issue, 299. Dates of issue, from March 15, 1884, to 
September 23, 1885. 

Oberteuffer vs. Robertson, N. S., 9055, tried; verdict rendered for 
defendant. Trial reported May 17, 1884. Plaintiffs made motion for 
new trial; motion denied. Report thereof made to Department August 
22, 1885. Plaintiffs are preparing to take this case to the Supreme 
Court. 


No. 99. 

Inquiry to United States District Attorney at New York. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , I). C ., September 5, 1885. 

Sir : Please cause to be prepared an exhibition of the total number 
of suits or proceedings for forfeiture and for value begun at the port 
or in the southern district of New York, on account of customs fraud, 
between the date of the enactment of the law of March, 1863, to 
strengthen the moiety system, and its repeal or modification, in 1874, 
and the total sum of money at any time paid into the registry of the 
court or into the custom-house by the claimants or defendants in those 
suits or proceedings, in compromise or in settlement, or in consequence 
thereof. And also cause to be prepared a similar exhibition of the 
total number of similar suits or proceedings, and the total sum of 
money received therein, since 1874 and the repeal, in 1874, of the moiety 
law. 

Respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Hon. William Dorsheimer, 

District Attorney , New York , N. Y. 



628 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 100. 

Office of the United States Attorney 

for the Southern District of New York, 

New York , October 20, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor, in response to the request contained in your 
letter of September 5, 1885, of transmitting herewith a detailed report 
of the cases begun in this district during the period from March, 1863, 
to date, for forfeiture in value under the customs laws, together with 
the information requested by you, so far as it appears upon the dockets 
of this and the clerk’s office. 

Very respectfully, 

WILLIAM DORSHIEMER, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. Daniel Manning,* 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, J). C. 


No. 101. 

Note. —Accompanying the letter of the United States attorney (No. 
94) is a tabulated statement of the cases begun in the southern district 
of New York since March, 1863, of which the following is a summary : 

SUMMARY. 



Number 
of suits. 

Amount 

recovered. 

Suita commenced after March 1,1863, and before June 22,1874: 

In rem. 

In personam.. 

747 

210 

$1, 284, 039 29 
2, 412,193 33 

Total. 

957 

3, 696, 232 53 

Suits commenced since June 22,1874: 

Seizure cases. 

s 

9, 689 95 
264,237 22 
119,897 55 

Seizure and forfeiture docket. . 

200 

In personam..... 

46 


Total. 


393, 774 72 



Grand total. 

1, 211 

4, 090, 007 25 



























REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 629 


No. 102 . 

LEWIS McMULLEN—Appointed February 27, 1852; appointed Appraiser April 23, 

1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 2, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to the circular received from the Department dated 
August 27,1885, requesting answers to thirty-four inquiries, I respect¬ 
fully submit the following replies: 

Inquiry No. 1.—There is no evidence, and the various channels in¬ 
voices have to pass through make it almost impossible that the full 
rates of duties prescribed by law have not been levied and collected. 

Inquiry No. 2.—There is no evidence that specific rates of duty have 
not been fully collected as prescribed by law. 

Inquiry No. 3.—The invoiced measurements of all textile fabrics are 
verified. The yard or metre stick is used. The width of. all goods is 
actually measured. The length is also verified, particularly when 
cause for suspicion exists or when an error is apparent. 

Inquiry No. 4.—No evidence exists of collusion between the importer 
and customs officers in relation to ordering bogus packages for exam¬ 
ination. If such collusion existed, it would be very hazardous, and 
discovery would be almost unavoidable from the examination of mer¬ 
chandise under existing regulations. 

Inquiry No. 5.—Pertains to the collector of the port. 

Inquiry No. 6 .— (1.) The present existing regulations concerning pro¬ 
test and appeal in differences between importers and collectors are 
considered ample and well-devised. The fact alone that through the 
final decisions of the Department a uniform assessment of rates is ob¬ 
tained is of such advantage that seeming hardship to the importer is 
fully compensated for by the benefit derived from the present procedure. 

(2.) Pertains to the collector of the port and district attorney. 

(3, 4, 5, 6.) Pertain to the district attorney. 

Inquiry No. 7. —French and Swiss goods have, as a rule, been under¬ 
valued for several years past. The custom seems to exist that nearly 
all invoices from France or Switzerland are made out “for custom¬ 
house use in the United States” at an undervaluation. This is veri¬ 
fied by the fact that at various times invoices have been presented to 
the appraising officers stating the full value paid for the merchandise, 
accompanied by undervalued invoices (for customs use) for the same 
merchandise, duly executed before the American consuls abroad. 

Inquiry No. 8.—The certification of consular officers stationed in 
France, excepting the district of Lyons, is of such a simple and irre¬ 
sponsible nature as to take away any seeming obligation on the part 
of the person offering the invoice for authentication. This procedure 
is so unlike that of any other consulate outside .of France, that it is 
believed that to this easy mode and the unquestioned acceptance of the 
invoices may be attributed the almost universally prevailing under¬ 
valuation of French merchandise. 

Inquiry No. 9.—It is not known that false dutiable values have been 
reported by any of the appraising officers to the collector. 

Inquiry No. 10.—(1.) Doubt and confusion, also conflict of opinion, 
may have existed under the previous administration of the appraiser’s 
department, but do not now exist. 


630 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


(2.) The statutes defining the manner of arriving at the true foreign 
market value seem to be sufficiently defined to enable the examiners, 
assistant appraisers, and the appraiser to determine the actual market 
value of imported merchandise. 

Inquiry No. 11.—A safe and correct estimate of undervaluations can 
be made by calculating the value of the merchandise, taking as a basis 
the amounts collected for values advanced by the appraiser, which 
should be a matter of statistical record in the collector’s department. 

Inquiry No. 12.—(1.) For a false return of value to the collector the 
examiner would be primarily and chiefly responsible. 

(2.) His salary varies from $1,200 to $2,500. 

(3.) The appraiser officially certifies to the collector the values fixed ; 
but in the port of New York it would be a physical impossibility thus 
to certify personally; an approval stamp is therefore used, and the 
assistant appraiser who signs the examiner’s return upon the invoices 
then becomes, for this purpose, the responsible appraising officer. In 
illustration, it may be stated that during the past three years invoices 
and appraisement orders have been received as follows: 


Year. 

Invoices. 

Appraisements. 

1882.. 

217, 438 
213, 606 
205, 762 

12, 104 
14, 784 
14, 735 

1883. 

1884.. 

Total. 

636, 806 

41, 623 



Of these, more than one-half had to be stamped two or three times. 
All invoices, however, upon which the advance is 10 per cent, or over, 
involving a penalty, as well as all damage allowances, are personally 
approved by the appraiser. 

Inquiry No. 13.—There is no evidence of connivance by any Govern¬ 
ment officer of assisting any appraising officer in undervaluing foreign 
goods. 

Inquiry No. 14.—It would be unjust to ascribe a failure to collect the 
full amount of duty on merchandise to dishonesty. While suspicion 
may have arisen, and close observation may have suggested doubt as 
to the integrity of an examining officer, such distrust has, as far as 
known, always been followed by dismissal of the suspected party. 

While bribery may, in some instances, have benefited an importer, 
it is not believed that at the port of New York any organized cor¬ 
ruption-fund has been disbursed in order to defraud the revenues. 

Inquiry No. 15.—Bribery or corrupt influences are not believed to be 
the source of false valuations. The competition in trade is the main 
cause, the desire to obtain foreign merchandise as cheap as possible, 
the well-known levity with which custom-house oaths are regarded by 
the importing public, the inability or unwillingness to prosecute viola¬ 
tions of bonds given by importers, all contribute to undervaluations, 
unjustly ascribed to bribery. 

Inquiry No. 16.—Specific rates of duty, under proper safeguards, 
would undoubtedly benefit the revenues and help to diminish any 
tendency to bribery. The present rates could in many instances very 
nearly approximate to specific rates. 














REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 631 


In regard to textile fabrics, the ever-changing styles arid fashions 
and the consequent change in the mode of production would require 
such an adjustment of the scale of duty as to prevent the importation 
of cheaper classes of textile fabrics. 

Inquiry No. 17.—It is not believed that the repeal of the moiety act 
has increased false reports by appraising officers, but no doubt exists 
that the repeal of that act, and the consequent inability to examine 
books and papers, has emboldened many importers to undervalue their 
goods with impunity. 

Inquiry No. 18.—(1.) It is believed that at the bottom of most under¬ 
valuations lies the neglect of consular officers to verify the correctness 
of invoice values. What can now be done at consulates like Brad¬ 
ford. Manchester, Liverpool, Lyons, St. Galle, or Elberfeld, should 
equally well be done at other consular districts. 

(2.) If the class of merchandise exported from a consular district 
varies very little, it would be much easier to ascertain the true market 
value of each shipment at the place of production, where sales to other 
markets than the American can be observed. 

(3.) It is not believed that vexatious delays would occur in thus 
examining values before certifying to invoices. 

(4.) Consular fees exacted in London appear to be now 10 shillings 
and 6 pence, with a fee of 3 shillings sterling for notary’s fees. This 
amount appears in nearly all invoices charged to the importer here. 
Invoices of productions of the interior of a country are frequently veri¬ 
fied by consols at the seaports, the shipping merchant at such seaport 
making up the invoice, thus disguising from the appraising officers the 
place of production. 

Inquiry No. 19.—It is believed that it would be neither safe nor use¬ 
ful to change the present mode of ascertaining dutiable values. While 
the law is arbitrary, as all laws are, it would lead to endless appeals or 
lawsuits. Custom has sanctioned the present mode; importers are 
accustomed to it. 

Inquiry No. 20.—This inquiry will be answered by assistant appraiser 
Strong, in charge of the wool department, who has given the subject 
his particular attention. 

Inquiry No. 21.—Pertains to the United States surveyor of the port. 

Inquiry No. 22.—There is no evidence to show that duties have been 
evaded on account of existing rates of duty. Silk goods, paying un¬ 
der the old tariff 60 per cent., are now, at 50 per cent., just as much 
undervalued as heretofore. 

Inquiry No. 23.—This inquiry concerns the other ports. 

Inquiry No. 24.—It is not a fact that false returns of dutiable values 
have been made to collectors at the port of New York for considerable 
time past. Sporadic cases have been discovered and complained of. 
The suspected parties have, in some instances, been arrested and in¬ 
dicted, but on account of miscarriage of proceedings in court never 
punished except by dismissal. 

Very respectfully your obedient servant, 

LEWIS McMULLEN, 

Appraiser. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. 


632 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 103. 

Additional Inquiries to Appraiser McMullen. 

Treasury^ Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , October 10, 1885. 

Sir: Your reply to my circular letter dated August 27, 1885, has 
been received, and your immediate attention is directed to the follow¬ 
ing additional inquiries, the relation of which to those in my circular 
is indicated by the numbers given below : 

No. 7.—My seventh inquiry related to “the full amount of duty that 
the law prescribed.” You reply, that “French and Swiss goods have 
as a rule been undervalued for several years past,” and that “nearly all 
invoices from France and Switzerland are made out * * . * at an 
undervaluation .” I infer that by “undervalued” and “undervalua¬ 
tion,” in that connection, yon mean that the invoices as presented 
have not contained the actual cost of purchased goods or the fair market 
value of manufactured and consigned goods. Am T correct in my in¬ 
ference? If not, please explain fully your meaning, and also give your 
opinion in respect to the specific inquiries in the seventh question. 

No. 8.—Am I to understand you as expressing the opinion, in reply 
to my eighth question, that the failure of French shippers to declare 
the true invoice value has come, in great part, from the conduct of the 
American consular officers? 

No. 9.—Please say whether or not the appraising officers have, during 
the time of which you speak, reported as “value correct” the French 
and Swiss invoices to which you'have referred? Have the appraisers, 
as a rule, advanced the invoice values to make correct dutiable values? 

No. 11.—My eleventh inquiry related to a failure of the appraisers 
to advance the invoice value to make dutiable value, and to the assess¬ 
ment of the rate of duty by the collector on the false value returned to 
him by the appraisers. Your reply seems to refer only to invoices 
whenever the invoice value was advanced by the appraisers. 

No. 12.—Your table of figures presents a total of 636,806 invoices and 
only 41,623 appraisements. Has there not been an appraisement on each 
invoice? And will you explain whether or not the law, in your opin¬ 
ion, requires the personal inspection of the merchandise by the ap¬ 
praiser and personal approval by him of the appraisement, where the 
invoice is reported to the collector “value correct,” as when the in¬ 
voice value is advanced? 

No. 15.—I infer that by your fifteenth reply you intend to say that 
“competition in trade is the main cause” of false values in invoices and 
the desire of importers to pay as little duty as possible, and that by 
“false valuations” you do not refer to false returns made by the ap¬ 
praiser to the collector. Will you explain how the revenue can have 
suffered at all if it be true that the appraisers have returned full duti¬ 
able values to the collector ;and, also, will you explain to what “bonds” 
you refer as those that have not been presented by the collector? 

No. 17.—If the repeal of the “moiety act has emboldened importers 
to undervalue their goods with impunity ,” has not the revenue suffered 
by such invoice undervaluations? 

No. 18.—Will you please to give me your opinion whether or not 
the full amount ot duty imposed by Congress on silks from France and 
Switzerland has within the last two years been generally levied and 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


633 


collected at the port of New York? And, also, whether or not the full 
amount is now collected at New York; and, if not, then explain why 
not. 

Yo. 24.—During how long a time last past is it your opinion that 
all imported merchandise entered at the port of New York has been 
appraised at the full and lair dutiable value required by law? 

Respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Lewis McMullen. Esq., 

Appraiser, New York City. 


No. 104. 

Port of New York,- Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 22, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to your letter of the 10th instant, relating 
to my replies to circular letter dated August 27, 1885, 1 present the fol¬ 
lowing answers to the additional inquiries, each being indicated by the 
corresponding number of the above circular: 

No. 7. —Your inference as t o my statement of undervaluation of French 
and Swiss invoices is quite correct. The invoices from those countries 
do not present the actual market value of the merchandise at the time of 
shipment of purchased goods, as well as consignments. Innumerable ad¬ 
vances to such invoices have been made. Reappraisements have been 
called for, but under the previous administration of the general apprais¬ 
er’s office very few of the advances were sustained, the majority being re¬ 
duced to a trifle less than 10 per cent, to avoid the penal duty of 20 per 
cent*. This circumstance, with the limited number of persons who could 
be selected as unbiased merchant appraisers, has been one of the con- 
tributive elements that led to the failure to levy full amounts of duty. 
To successfully controvert this failure, more importance should be placed 
to any advances made by the experienced appraisers. If on reappraise¬ 
ment the general and merchant appraiser disagree, and no compromise 
to a lower valuation can be made, the collector, often without any ocular 
inspection of the merchandise, decides upon the value, and if it be in 
favor of the merchant appraiser’s view, the thrifty and unscrupulous 
importer will be strengthened again in his belief that raids upon the 
Treasury may be successfully made by undervaluation. 

While examiners as a whole compare in character favorably with the 
employes Of any of the large mercantile houses in this city, it cannot be 
denied that the higher pay offered by merchants to experienced per¬ 
sons in their service compels the employment of examiners who, while 
acquainted with the class of goods assigned to them, have yet to learn 
the difficult work of ascertaining the true market value in the different 
principal markets of the countries of exportation. This may, in'some 
instances, also have been one of the causes of the failure referred to. 

No. 8.—I also desire it to be understood in this connection that in my 
reply to the eighth question I am fully convinced that the present ex¬ 
isting undervaluation of French invoices is largely to be ascribed to the 
irresponsible manner in which American consular officers certify to such 
invoices. For instance, at many consulates the certificates of consuls 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


G34 

state solely the total amount as per invoice. In many instances goods 
from well-known manufacturers are invoiced by French commission 
houses, whose only relation to the merchandise consists in seeing the 
same properly packed and shipped. 

It is also of frequent occurrence that goods are shipped from the place 
of manufacture to a seaport, and there before the consul at the seaport 
declaration is made by the shipper. The consul, under such circum¬ 
stances, cannot know the market value of the goods. There is none, 
because no such goods are produced or sold there. This easy mode of 
obtaining a consular certificate is undoubtedly one of the reasons that 
led to the almost universal undervaluation of French merchandise, 
and, if taken in connection with the fact that the principal manufact¬ 
urers have their own selling agents at this port, attempts at undervalu¬ 
ation are constantly made. 

No. 9.—No invoices of which I have spoken as undervalued have ever 
been passed “value correct.” All such invoices have been advanced 
to make market value. How* far, however, these advances have been 
sustained on reappraisement I am unable to say. I must, however, 
also remark that, under my predecessor,''many invoices have been re¬ 
called, the advances reconsidered and reduced without the concurrence 
of the examining officers. This practice does not exist now. 

No. 11.—This inquiry should have been answered as follows: No safe 
average estimate could be made at this port of any undervaluation not 
detected; and while it is possible that slight undervaluations have in¬ 
advertently been overlooked, it is believed that no great losses have 
occurred by this evasion of duty. Collusion between examiners and 
importers have been discovered, but the guilty parties have been prose¬ 
cuted, and fines and penalties recovered. 

No. 12.—The table presented in reply to this question was intended 
to show that during the periods stated (136,806 invoices and 41,623 ap¬ 
praisement orders—total, 678,429 appraisements—had been in this de¬ 
partment. The law does not, in my opinion, require personal inspection 
of the merchandise by the appraiser, although this is frequently, 1 may 
say daily, done whenever questions of classification or valuation require 
it. While the appraiser directs and supervises all appraisements of 
merchandise, it is the duty of the assistant appraiser diligently and 
faithfully to examine all goods, wares, and merchandise under the di¬ 
rection of the appraiser. 

While these reports are carefully scrutinized, and the attention of the 
appraiser is called to any deviation from the rules and regulations, and 
while corrections and revision are ordered by him, the various other 
duties devolving upon him make it impossible for him to personally 
affix his approval. It would require his signature from one thousand 
two hundred to one thousand five hundred times per day. An approval 
stamp is therefore used. The rapid delivery of goods, passed to make 
room for new arrivals, causes daily a great rush of business during the 
afternoon hours, and would make it a physical impossibility to certify 
personally to correctness of invoices. The appraiser, however, daily 
scrutinizes and approves, personally, all invoices advanced over 10 per 
cent. ; all damage allowances; all the reports from assistant appraisers 
on protest and appeals; all requisitions for material required; all rec¬ 
ommendations of names of merchant appraisers to the collector, besides 
the correspondence and current business of his office, giving advice and 
instructions to examiners and assistant appraisers, receiving calls from 
importers and brokers inquiring about importations, tariff interpre- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 635 


tation, decisions, &c. This so much occupies the appraiser’s time that 
it necessitates his constant attention from 8 o’clock A. m. to 5 o’clock 
p. m. and later. 

No. 15.—This inquiry was not properly replied to in my answer. 
While stating the main causes of undervaluations, it should have been 
stated that bribery or venality is not the cause for reporting false valu¬ 
ations to the collector. An unintentional omission, a lack of sufficient 
information to advance an invoice, a doubt as to the origin of an impor¬ 
tation, may occasionally cause a small loss to the revenues, but a sys¬ 
tematic attempt at fraud could not be carried on undetected, and the 
tines and penalties have in all such cases repaid all losses. The ‘ ‘bonds’ ’ 
alluded to in my reply are those provided for by section 2899, Revised 
Statutes. 

No. 17.—The word “impunity,” in my reply to this inquiry, should 
convey the meaning that the repeal of the “moiety law,” while em¬ 
boldening importers to undervalue their goods with impunity, does not 
mean that such undervaluations are not detected in consequence of the 
prohibition to examine books and papers. 

No. 18.—It is my opinion that the full amount of duty on silks from 
France and Switzerland has not been generally levied and collected at 
this port for the past two years. Strenuous efforts to correct the evils 
existing have been made by removing persons who gave cause for dis¬ 
trust, and it is believed that the full amount is now collected ; but the 
objections to reappraisements, above stated, are not wholly overcome, 
although no blame of any kind attaches to the present general appraiser. 

No. 24.—It is my opinion that during my administration for the past 
five months all imported merchandise entered at this port and subject 
to appraisal here has been faithfully and fairly appraised at its full 
dutiable value in conformity with the law. 

. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

lewis McMullen. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, I). G. 


No. 105. 

SILAS W. BURT—Appointed Deputy Naval Officer April 29, 1869; as Clerk and 
Comptroller May 24, 1873 ; as Naval Officer July 11, 1878, and July 11, 1885. 

Port of New York, Naval Office, 

September 21, 1885. 

Sir: With respectful reference to your confidential circular of the 
27th ultimo, propounding twenty-four distinct inquiries regarding 
certain points in the customs laws, regulations, administration, and 
practice, I have the honor to report as follows : 

The series of questions, as a whole, appears to be based upon recent 
investigations by your Department with which I am not acquainted, 
either as to details or conclusions. This is particularly true as to 
Questions Nos. 7 to 15, both inclusive; but while my disconnection 
with the Department for two years past disqualifies me from treating 
the specific queries as to recent frauds by either importers or officials, 
I believe that my former long experience enables me to express an 


636 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


intelligent opinion upon the questions of a general nature broached 
in your circular. While that circular invites unrestrained candor in 
expression, I would premise that my references to the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment are more particularly applicable to its administration prior to 
your own charge of it. My official experience in customs matters was 
gained between the years 1868 and 1883. 

I have settled opinions upon many customs matters not touched 
upon in your circular, and which future opportunities may lead me 
to express. 

I have attempted to answer such of your queries only concerning 
which I have information and consequent opinion, and have placed at 
the head of each answer the number of corresponding number in the 
circular. 

1. I am convinced that the rates of duty have generally been levied 
and collected at this port in accordance with the law as construed by 
the Treasury Department, and upon the presumption that the classifi¬ 
cations certified by the appraiser were correct. My assurance of this 
rests upon the great improvement in the liquidation of entries accom¬ 
plished in this office within the past twelve years. Prior to that period 
the liquidations were made in most cases in a perfunctory way, the 
returns of the appraiser, weighers, gaugers, and inspectors being 
accepted as unalterable, and the liquidating clerks being generally 
ignorant of the latest decisions. Great attention was given to the cor¬ 
rect arithmetical rendering of foreign measures, weights, and curren¬ 
cies into our equivalents, and to the correct calculation of duty accord¬ 
ing to the official returns, but beyond these there was generally no 
critical examination. During the period of twelve years past, it has 
been the practice in this office to examine with great care all returns, 
and whenever there was an apparent discrepancy between the classifi¬ 
cation returned by the appraiser and the invoice description of the 
goods, or with the advisory rate given by the appraiser, or whenever 
the rate did not accord with the decision extant by the Department, 
the invoice has been sent (if possible) to the appraiser for reconsider¬ 
ation and correction. In this way a large number of erroneous returns 
have been corrected. There has been much embarrassment, and I be¬ 
lieve loss to the revenue, arising from the obstructive action of the 
collector’s office in claiming that all such invoices must be returned 
through that office to the appraiser, a claim strangely sustained by the 
Department. In this way there have been serious obstacles and delays 
in procuring corrections, and in some cases the way to correction has 
been blocked by the refusal in the collector’s office to return the in¬ 
voice to the appraiser. A very questionable point of official punctilio 
has been allowed to obstruct the lawful function of this office in secur¬ 
ing accuracy and promptness in the collection of the revenue. I would 
add that it is obvious that the result of such uncorrected error is a 
loss to the revenue, since the importer is alive to his own interests and 
secures the correction of errors of overcharge of duty, whild the naval 
officer is the final guardian of the revenue so far as it depends upon 
the liquidation of the entries, and as such should have every facility 
to inquire, inspect, and to ask for the reconsideration by all officers of 
their returns, when these are elements in the assessment of duty. 

To return to the question in its broadest bearing, I will add that on ac¬ 
count of the wrong constructions of law by the Treasury Department 
the lawful rates of duty have not always been levied and collected. I 


RETORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. G37 

am not able by positive evidence to assert that any of these construct ^ 
tions were corruptly procured, but for ten years prior to 1885 I have\ 
had no confidence in the conduct of these decisions by the customs j 
division. Whatever the motives, there were such peculiar, unsub- / 
stantial, illogical, and inconsistent decisions and reversals thereof as/ 
inflicted incalculable injury upon the revenue, the merchants, and, 
above all, upon the people as consumers. 

2. As noted under the last answer, prior to the reorganization of the 
liquidating division of this office, in 1874, it had‘been the custom, as 
sustained and defended by the principal officers under the collector, to j 
accept a customs weigher’s return as final and unalterable, no matter / 
what its discrepancy with the invoice. Under such a practice the vast / 
frauds perpetrated by the weighers between 1864 and 1869 were not ! 
only possible, but, considering human frailty, were encouraged. The 1 
loss of revenue in detected and proven cases was very great, but formed \ 
only a small proportion of the aggregate loss. 

For over ten years past the discoyery in this office of any material 
discrepancy between the weigher’s return and the invoice weights, or 
between either of these and the standard or commercial weights of 
similar packages of goods, has led to a reference to the weigher for\ 
explanation, and to a personal examination of the original “dock- \ 
book” of weights by the chief liquidator of this office when necessary. \ 
The records show that in this way not only a large number of serious 
errors have been detected and corrected, but that it has.also led to ; 
greater care and accuracy by the weighers, and to a more close inspec- ; 
tion and verification of the dock-books by the surveyor. 

Notwithstanding these corrective influences, I am persuaded, as f 
have been for years, that there should be a radical reorganization of 
the weigher’s department at this port, which should be placed under 
the charge of an experienced official, whose sole duty it shall be to 
superintend all the weighing, gauging, and measuring at this port not 
transacted in the appraiser’s department. Personally convinced that 
specific duties must at an early day be substituted for the most of the 
present ad valorem rates, I believe that such an organization of the 
weigher’s department is an important and urgent duty of the Depart¬ 
ment. Specific duties rest upon the ascertainment of facts and con¬ 
ditions existing while the goods are in the custody of the Government, 
and the verification of these facts and conditions can be insured by the 
adoption of proper methods and the employment of efficient and trust¬ 
worthy officials under good organization and discipline. An early 
movement towards the establishment of such a corps is indicated by 
the increasing tendency to a specific-rate tariff, and by the policy of 
careful preparation for a prompt and satisfactory administration of 
such a tariff. It is taken for granted that such an important corps of 
officers would be selected and retained without any other considera¬ 
tions than those touching their fitness. 

6. I have long been of the opinion that a radical defect in existing 
laws respecting the decision of differences as to rates of duty between 
importers and collectors is the privilege granted the former to institute 
ex parte and quasi legal proceedings before the Secretary of the Treasury, 
acting as a judge in chambers, for so the present right of appeal to 
that officer may justly be considered. The Treasury Department is 
essentially executive, and, as the decision of these appeals has been 
treated as a judicial function, there has been a disposition to ignore tho 


638 • REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


executive function, in order that it might not clash with or extinguish 
the privilege of appellate adjudication. As an evidence of this dispo¬ 
sition, I would allude to the action of the Department relative to the 
very important and extensive changes in the rates of duty under the 
act of July 14, 1870, which changes were to go into effect upon Jan¬ 
uary 1, 1871, or nearly six months later. The Department was re¬ 
quested by this office, in November, 1870, to give instructions as to 
many points in the administration of the new law which seemed obscure 
or doubtful. The re^fiy was that these would be decided upon the sub¬ 
mission of actual cases after the law went into effect. I beg leave to 
quote the following from my letter of November 28, 1870, to the then 
chief of the customs division: 

“I cannot agree with you as to the desirability of allowing all ques¬ 
tions under the new tariff to be decided by a formal appeal to the 
Department in cases as they arise. If the customs officials and the mer¬ 
chants here represented two opposing interests and the Treasury De¬ 
partment represented an independent and uninterested tribunal, your 
view of the case would certainly be correct, since the court should not 
prejudge a case. But the customs officials are the subordinates of the 
Treasury Department, and the final decision rests in the United States 
courts. The action of the Department on customs questions referred 
to it is confined to the approval or disapproval of the acts of its own 
local agents, and it is therefore incumbent upon it to so instruct these 
agents as to avoid the necessity of overruling their decisions, and so 
preserve the reputation of the Department, and, by an intelligent har¬ 
mony, prevent the expenses and vexation, both public and private, 
originating in uncertain action. Of course, there are questions, many 
of them very important, that cannot be anticipated, and which, devel¬ 
oped in actual practice, must from time to time be referred to the 
Department for specific action or the decision of general principles. 
But there is, in anticipation of the new tariff, a large class of questions 
which can readily be foreseen, and, if thoroughly examined and de¬ 
termined in advance, there would result greater ease and economy in 
the administration of the law at this port, where the mass of business 
will be sb heavy and persistent that any obstacle will cause great 
friction. 7 ’ 

I have never seen any reasons for change in my opinions as expressed 
fifteen years ago, and the outcome of the action then was the develop¬ 
ment of a vast number of appeals which might have been prevented 
by prior instructions on points that could as well have been decided 
in advance as after the enforcement of the new rates, and this result 
holds good in regard to all the subsequent changes of tariff and the 
appeals originating under them. 

Among the executive duties imposed upon the Secretary of the 
Treasury is the superintendence of the collection of duties on imports, 
and he is empowered and directed to give directions to the collectors. 
As was held by Justices Stone and McLean in the case of Cary vs. Curtis, 
(3 How., 236,) the power to entertain appeals on questions of duty from 
the acts of these subordinates ‘ ‘ unites in the same Department executive 
and judicial powers.” The latter powers have in fact been largely 
exercised by a clerk in the Department, known as the chief of the cus¬ 
toms division, but, whether exercised by this clerk, or by the secretary, 
or assistant secretary, the proceedings have been ex parte so far as the 
pleadings were concerned, and in other respects informal, without the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 639 


power to compel witnesses and bound by no rules of evidence, code of 
procedures, or other safeguards thrown around all legally constituted tri¬ 
bunals. At the best these decisions have not had the authoritative 
force of a court decree, and too often have been controlled by the super¬ 
ficial views or interested advice of the clerk in charge. There is no 
other administrative officer in the world having charge of such a vast 
volume of important business as the Secretory of the Treasury of the 
United States, and this volume increases yearly. It would be a great 
relief to transfer to some fit tribunal the decision of these appeals, 
the accumulation of which has embarrassed an overburdened Depart¬ 
ment and led to delays very harassing to importers, obstructive to 
commerce, and burdensome to the people, who as consumers of dutiable 
goods have generally to pay all the excess of duties originally exacted, 
and also the cost of its refund, without any benefit from the latter. 

The effect of such a system has been to render collectors timid and 
tentative in their administration, and to encourage the imposition of 
the highest rate of duty for which there was a colorable pretext. In 
this course they have been further encouraged by customs brokers, 
who subsequently, as claim agents, have shared in the refund of the 
excessive duties they originally instigated. While such abuses have 
been greatly abated by the more careful and thorough liquidation of 
entries instituted in recent years, there remains a powerful incentive 
to overcharge, which must be constantly guarded against. 

It is obviously for the interest of the revenue, the merchant, and the 
consumer that the rates of duties should be promptly and finally 
settled, and this can only be done by a properly constituted judicial 
body. In Great Britain the statutes provide that the importer, if dis¬ 
satisfied with the rate of duty imposed by the collector, shall commence 
suit within three months from the date of payment, otherwise the 
original assessment shall be final and conclusive, there being no inter¬ 
mediate appeal to the executive departments. This was also the pro¬ 
cedure when the British tariff* covered a large number of dutiable 
articles. Should such a course be pursued here, the overburdened 
calendars of the existing courts would suggest the establishment of a 
special tribunal. In a special report made by me to Secretary Windom, 
on July 15, 1881, I proposed that such a court might be constituted 
by law in the first three circuit districts, with the addition of the Mary¬ 
land district. This territory would comprise the ports of Boston, New 
York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, at which over nine-tenths of the 
customs revenue are collected. Such a court, to be known as the i 1 court 
of exchequer, ” or by any other appropriate title, and composed of 
three or more judges, might have original jurisdiction of all suits in¬ 
stituted under our revenue laws within the district named, outside of 
which the present circuit courts could act as “ courts of exchequer ” 
for the limited amount of litigation that would originate beyond that 
district. Before such a tribunal all issues might be speedily tried, with 
privilege of appeal on issues of law direct to the Supreme Court. I 
am not versed in juridical matters, and so have presented an outline 
only, which could be modified and completed by others. The main 
point to be considered is that all the interests concerned demand some 
method—prompt, authoritative, and definitive—for determining cus¬ 
toms disputes. 

I would suggest the feasibility of requiring suitors to prove damages 
by evidence that they had not reimbursed themselves for the alleged 



640 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


excess of duties by including such excess in the price of the goods as 
sold by them. 

As regards the present allowance of interest upon such refunds of 
excess in duties, I can advise no amendment to the law. If there has 
been an overcharge of duties which has inflicted positive damage upon 
the payer, he is entitled to interest upon such overcharge, and though 
the rate of 0 per cent, per annum is much more than is given by the 
Government to its bondholders, it cannot be expected that the rate 
given to voluntary creditors upon long-period securities should govern 
the allowance to judgment creditors. Keeping this in view, I do not 
think the present rate of 6 per cent, is excessive. 

10. There is now and there has recently been confusion, doubt, and 
conflict of opinion respecting the elements to be ascertained in order 
to fix and declare dutiable values, and this confusion, doubt, and con¬ 
flict have not been confined to the appraiser’s department. Under the 
sixth answer I have alluded to certain difficulties arising from lack of 
opportune instructions from the Treasury Department, which has gen¬ 
erally concluded to confine its expression as to rates of duty, bases of 
value, &c., to the judgment of special and actual cases. The result has 
been that customs officers have started off without general or particu¬ 
lar instructions as to the changes effected by new laws, and, conse¬ 
quently, have felt a certain timidity and doubt in their official action, 
which have sown the seed for a great harvest of protests, appeals, and 
refunds. The disxmtes as to rates and methods of estimating dutiable 
values have been carried by appeal to the Department upon special 
aspects of the individual cases. Even with an earnest desire to be con¬ 
sistent, the absence of antecedent principles carefully considered and 
clearly enunciated has often led to great error and confusion in these 
Departmental decisions in their relation to general basic principles. 
The subsequent reversal or modification of these decisions by no means 
repairs the injury. I cannot conceive any method whereby the present 
procedure can be made satisfactory. In determining these appeals upon 
individual cases, there are insuperable difficulties in this procedure 
arising in the distracting complexities of details advanced by the ap¬ 
pellant which are often only apparent elements in the actual problem, 
and therefore obscuring its solution, while there are presented only in¬ 
formal and inadequate opportunities for forming a correct judgment, 
at a distance from the goods, the officers and official records, and com¬ 
petent testimony. 

Ko question since the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, has been 
so much vexed as that concerning the determination of dutiable values. 
The difficulties on this point have been attributable in part to the fact 
that several bases of value are recognized in the statutes, and that there 
has been no authoritative and fixed decision as to what should consti¬ 
tute each of these values in customs practice. There is, first, the cer¬ 
tified invoice value, which is by law the minimum value for imposing 
duty; secondly, the entered value, which may be more than the invoice 
value, and is conclusive as to the importer; thirdly, the market value, 
which is to be ascertained and certified by the appraiser; and, fourthly, 
the dutiable value, which is to be determined by the collector and naval 
officer (under instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury) in all cases, 
where the “market” value and the “dutiable” value are not identical. 

In the minds of customs officials there has too frequently been a lack 
of discrimination between these several values, which are not neces- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 641 


sarily identical, and are subject to distinct conditions and differential 
treatment under the statutes. The failure to recognize these distinc¬ 
tions, as also to perceive that the act of March 3, 1883, in rejecting 
certain elements on dutiable values did not positively define a new 
basis, lead both officials and importers into such confusion and dispute 
as to engender nearly a hundred thousand appeals from this port alone. 

I would digress here to remark that it is unjust to commercial in¬ 
terests to have a reduction or, indeed, any change in tariff rates and 
values go into effect coincidently with the passage of the law or within 
ninety days of that passage. Great consideration is due to those mer¬ 
chants who have still in market goods upon which higher duties have 
been paid, and in larger view it is desirable that mercantile interests 
should be enabled to prepare for and accept such changes without 
shock. Through some inadvertence this principle was violated in per¬ 
mitting the provisions of the seventh section of the act of March 3, 
1883, to become operative on and after that date, and thus suddenly 
reducing dutiable values without previous preparation for them by 
either importers or officials. No general antecedent instructions could 
be given by the Department, but they could have been prepared and 
promulgated at an early day after the operation of the law began. A 
resume of the then existing conditions will illustrate the origin of the 
confusion as to values and the ease with which some general principle 
could have been applied with advantage to all concerned. 

Prior to March 3, 1883, there was a permanent and trustworthy 
standard for fixing dutiable values, and that was to include therein, 
in addition to the market value, every expense incurred before the 
goods were placed on board the vessel in which exported. There had 
been some slight exceptions to this general rule, but they were few, 
well defined by the Department! and well understood by officials and 
importers under the experience and settlements of nearly twenty years. 
The seventh section of the above-quoted act completely destroyed this 
accustomed standard, and neither in that section nor in any of the others 
was there a new standard established. I hold that it was the unques¬ 
tionable province and duty of the Treasury Department to repair this 
omission in the law, and to positively define the new standard at the 
earliest possible moment. As the old law had made the placing of the 
goods on the deck of the vessel as the point of demarcation between 
dutiable and non-dutiable charges, so the Treasury Department could 
have established the placing of the goods in the case, crate, box, or cov¬ 
ering in which packed for exportation hither as the new point of de¬ 
marcation. Such a decision would be consonant with the general tenor 
of the law, would have furnished an easy test, applicable as was the 
former standard, and would have been accepted by the importers with 
little question. But the matter gradually drifted into a sea of doubts, 
where officials differed from each other, special cases came before the 
Department under varying aspects, and there was the prospect of dis¬ 
tinct decisions upon every article on the dutiable lists. Inconsistent 
decisions might be quoted how cartons containing certain goods 
were elements of value, and containing other goods were not, and it 
is no wonder that there were doubts, confusion, and conflict of opin¬ 
ions in the customs official’s mind. The recent decision on this point 
by Judge Wallace goes far to quiet these disputes, and I would inter¬ 
polate here that this judicial opinion accords with that of the experi¬ 
enced officers under me, who for two years vainly attempted to secure 

41 A 


642 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


some general ruling to the same effect. I earnestly believe, however, 
that great good would be accomplished by a positive determina¬ 
tion by the Department as to what in customs practice shall consti¬ 
tute the several values, viz., invoice, entered, market, and dutiable. 
There are debatable questions and illogical practices rife as to all these 
points which interfere with the smooth discharge of business and un¬ 
necessarily remain to irritate the public. I would add that in all offi¬ 
cial papers in references to value there should be prefixed the qual¬ 
ifying adjective to clearly denote what value is meant. 

In conclusion, it would seem that the drift of all recent opinions is 
to accept market and dutiable values as identical. Market value is 
the value of the goods in a marketable condition— i. e., as exposed for 
sale and ready to be packed in the 4 4 usual or necessary sacks, crates, 
boxes, or covering, 77 after sale and for the purposes of transportation; 
and as this marketable condition represents the dutiable condition 
also, the market value and the dutiable value may be considered as 
one and the same. 

12. While the question of the primary responsibility for valuations 
may be controlled by the internal economy of the appraiser’s office, in 
which outsiders are not necessarily versed, it is my opinion that exam¬ 
iners are the officers so responsible. Their maximum pay at this port 
is $2,500 per annum , a much less compensation than is given by mer¬ 
cantile houses to those employed by them as experts in the quality and 
value of goods, and in this respect, as in so many others, the Govern¬ 
ment suffers through indisposition to secure the best service. I would 
qualify this, however, by remarking that it is the experience in civil- 
service examinations that such reputed experts in merchandise, though 
highly recommended by the trade, do not exhibit a very high degree 
of efficiency in determining either absolute or relative market values 
of goods upon inspection of samples submitted to them. It might be 
said that the most highly qualified experts were deterred from entering 
these competitive or special examinations by the low compensation 
attached to the position of examiners of goods, but there have been 
candidates so highly recommended by merchants as to be accepted as 
experts who have lamentably failed in these practical tests. It may, 
therefore, be deduced that appraisement in the absence of the invoice 
as a guide is untrustworthy, and this is confirmed by the instances of 
wrong valuation often detected in entries by appraisement when com¬ 
pared with the values in the invoices subsequently produced. Except 
in a few rare instances of highly qualified examiners, it would seem 
that appraisement under our customs laws is not a matter of exactness, 
but an empirical proceeding, largely dependent upon a knowledge of 
the values in the invoices. If this be so at this great port, where the 
examinations are made by professed specialists in each great branch of 
merchandise, what must it be at lesser ports, where a comparatively 
few, or even a single official, appraises the whole body of the impor¬ 
tations. 

Another instance of the defective nature of appraisements may be 
deduced from the fact that in certain lines of goods there are no ad¬ 
vances made upon the invoice values, although the temptations and 
opportunities for undervaluation are as great in these lines as in others 
where advances are frequently made and sustained. These considera¬ 
tions-lead me to discredit more and more the ad valorem system of 
appraisement. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 643 


I take occasion to remark here tliat, in consideration of these uncer¬ 
tainties, there should be some amendment in the methods of recording 
on invoices the advances of values. These are too frequently limited 
to the simple phrase ‘‘add to make market value,’ 7 when a more ex¬ 
plicit record would relieve the addition from its apparently arbitrary 
character. A similar practice by the general appraisers should be 
amended, for, as the question of values is so evidently one of personal 
opinion, there should be some reason on record for that opinion. 

16. I have long been convinced that a change from ad valorem to 
specific rates would not only be a benefit to the revenues, but would 
go far to relieve their administration from the friction and inevitable 
inj ustice that have made it in a measure odious. I might give here a 
resume of my reasons for this opinion as frequently expressed officially 
hitherto, but I presume the Department is fully apprised of all the 
arguments adduced on either side. I will therefore simply say that 
the ad valorem system is theoretically the perfect system, and that this 
has engaged its support by those who have only had opportunity to 
view it as an abstract proposition. This prejudice in its favor must 
surely give way before the overwhelming evidences that in practice, 
particularly with high rates, it breeds injustice, contention, and com¬ 
mercial obstructions that are almost intolerable. 

The United States is the only one of the great nations that retains to 
any extent the ad valorem method of assessment on imported goods. 
All the European tariffs except that of Turkey are “specific rate,” 
with very inconsiderable exceptions in each. 

The average rate of customs taxation, as based by percentage upon 
the total value of all merchandise imported, is higher in the United 
•States than elsewhere. The average rate as given for different periods 
is as follows: 


Year. 

1821. 

1831. 

1841. 

1851. 

1861. 

1862 to 1865, 
1866. 


Average rate. 

. 21 

. m 

. n* 

. 22 £ 

. 15 

. 30 

. 40 


Year. 

1867 to 1870. 

1871 . 

1872 . 

1873 to 1875. 
1876 to 1880. 
1881 to 1884. 


Average rate. 

. 45 

. 40 

. 34£ 

. 29 £ 

. 30 

. 29£ 


The reductions in average rates from 1870 to 1875 are almost entirely 
due to additions to the free-list, particularly those of tea and coffee. 

A similar table of average rates in Great Britain is as follows: 


Year. 

1800. 

1810. 

1820. 

1830. 

1840. 


Average rate. 

Year. 

. 22 

1850.. 

. 30 

I860.. 

. 31 

1870.. 

. 31 

1880.. 

. 33 



Average rate- 

. 20 

. 12 

. 7 

. 5 * 


And the latest statistics indicate the percentages, in France, 9£ ; Ger¬ 
man Empire, 61; Austria-Hungary, 3£; Belgium, 7; Italy, 8; and the 
Netherlands, 

It will be noted that the average rate here is much higher than in 
any of the other countries named, but, as the most heavy taxes in those 
countries are assessed by specific rates, it will be obvious that such ad 
valorem rates as they retain are below ours. 


























644 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In 1845, when the average rate of customs taxation in Great Britain 
was the highest during this century, the highest ad valorem rate (ex¬ 
cept when “optional”) was 25 per cent. Our present tariff has many 
classes of goods assessed 30, 35, 40, 50, and 60 per cent., and even some 
at 75 and 100 per cent. The present tariffs of European countries con¬ 
tain very few rates above 20, and the great mass are at 5 and 10 per 
cent. 

It may be fairly said that no country ever attempted such a difficult 
administrative task as has our own in the imposition of such high ad 
valorem duties, which have encouraged the most extended, ingenious, 
and baffling schemes for their evasion. It is probable that no ad valo¬ 
rem rate exceeding 25 per cent, could be assessed without loss by un - 
dervaluation, and that such loss would proportionally increase with 
the increase of rate. Indeed, I am myself convinced that after the 
corrupting influences of the present high rates there would be no secur¬ 
ity in a reduction to a maximum rate of 25 per cent., or even lower. 
The ingenious methods of evasion and fraud so long rife would not be 
abandoned, and though their absolute effect upon the amount of reve¬ 
nue would be diminished, they would continue to work injustice and 
strife. 

The long-continued falsification of values would prevent the exact 
conversion of the present ad valorem into equivalent specific rates 
based upon actual and relative values, as also it would obviously be 
impossible to preserve such equivalents in the face of fluctuating val¬ 
ues. It would not, however, be difficult to prepare a schedule of spe¬ 
cific rates to replace a great part of our present ad valorem rates, 
without material departure from the original intention of the law, 
whether that intention were purely to obtain revenue or for protection, • 
primarily or incidentally. 

As to your particular question whether “specific rates are applica¬ 
ble to all textile fabrics,” I should say yes , though there might be 
danger of constructing a classification too complicated were relative 
values to be the paramount consideration. Specific rates on such fab¬ 
rics might be based on weight or superficies, and in some cases, as at 
present, further differentiated by the number of threads in a given 
space. In some cases, both weight and square yards might be taken 
as elements in the assessment of duty. 

18. I should not deem it practicable for American consular agents 
to personally examine all articles to be shipped hither, nor indeed any 
part of them. Ao matter how numerous and alert such agents were, 
their function would not be recognized as an inherent or legal right, 
and would not have such protection under the laws of foreign countries 
as would insure the successful exercise of such a function. Even were 
it possible to obtain the recognition and protection of such rights by 
treaty stipulations, the attempt to organize such an administrative 
measure simply for the protection of our revenue or the protection of 
our manufacturers, would be very repugnant to popular sentiment in 
the foreign countries, and so obstruct and defeat the purpose, while 
injuring our general commercial relations with the people of such 
countries. Under the most favorable conditions of the laws and pop¬ 
ular sentiment abroad, such a verification of goods and prices would 
be imperfect, and liable to fraudulent collusions. It would simply du¬ 
plicate abroad all the difficulties we encounter here in the effort to 
satisfactorily administer an ad valorem rate system. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 645 


For sixty years the consular certification of invoices has been one 
of the provisions for protection against undervaluations, and has been 
as ineffectual as any of the other means adopted for the same end. I 
have given my opinion before several Congressional and other com¬ 
mittees that this certification might be abolished without great danger 
to the revenue. 

This conclusion has been based upon official observation, from which 
I have deduced only the following practical advantages from such 
classification, and these questionable: 1st, that it is proof of an actual 
commercial transaction at the place of certification, an advantage that 
inheres only to real sale and purchase, and not to the consignments 
w hich are the source of most trouble in appraisement; 2d, that it fur¬ 
nishes a basis for true reduction of depreciated currencies, though this 
might be as well accomplished by general reports of fluctuations made 
at stated periods; 3d, that it gives a weak appraiser an assurance of 
authenticity, which is, however, more often detrimental than advan¬ 
tageous to the revenue. Probably the injury arising from such de¬ 
pendence in appraisement upon the consular certificate is largely due 
to the generally heedless manner in w r hich such certifications are 
rendered, so far as they relate to market values. There have been 
exceptions to this general objection, but even the most efficient and 
conscientious consuls are baffled by the consignment of goods specially 
manufactured for our market. I will not dwell upon what might be ac¬ 
complished in rendering such certification more valuable by a better 
consular system, w ith appointments made for fitness alone, and the re¬ 
ward of promotion for recognized good service. We are placed at 
immense disadvantage in our competition for foreign trade, as in ail our 
other comihercial relations, by the inferiority of our consular service as 
compared with the permanent and trained service of other countries. 
]STot the least among the elements that have contributed to the commer¬ 
cial supremacy of Great Britain is the efficiency of her disciplined con¬ 
sular service. But, whether our service be efficient or otherwise, the 
best cure for losses by undervaluation is the substitution of specific for 
ad valorem rates, w r hich would render certification of invoices unneces¬ 
sary. For a defective certification by an officer, often acting perfunc¬ 
torily, and at the best without personal knowledge, acting in a foreign 
land beyond strict official supervision, the specific-rate system would 
substitute an absolute test of the goods by positive and immutable 
standards, applied w r hile the goods are in the possession of the Govern¬ 
ment by officers subject to perfect discipline and surveillance, and 
whose reports could be promptly and unerringly verified and corrected. 

This substitution w^ould cut off the present income from fees for cer¬ 
tification, an income that sustains the total consular expenses; but 
many times this amount would be returned to the Treasury by a better 
method of assessment. 

Should the present ad valorem system continue, I would suggest 
that, in lieu of the certification of invoices, the consuls should send 
frequent reports of prices-current, with samples attached, when prac¬ 
ticable, which might be transmitted by the Treasury Department to 
the appraisers. I admit that this would be a defective course, but it 
w T ould be better than the present method as administered. 

19. 1 do not think it would be safe or useful to the revenue or just 
to importers to give the executive or judicial powers greater jurisdic¬ 
tion to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable values upon an 


646 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


appeal from the original appraisement. It is an ascertainment of fact 
and not of law, and is to be determined by an arbitration by experts, 
either official or non-official; and in the latter case these experts may 
be considered as a “jury” to determine the facts. Sections 2609 and 
2930 of the Revised Statutes, in the provisions for original appraise¬ 
ment and for reappraisement by two merchants, recognize this jury 
principle of experts—a principle in the decision of facts alone so inter¬ 
woven in our commercial as well as judicial system that any departure 
from it would seem ill-advised. I further believe that such a depart¬ 
ure in this instance would increase the present uncertainties and dis¬ 
putes. 

20. I have not the time to make a satistactory analysis of the history 
of duty rates on wool since 1860, as it would require a careful collation 
of statistics not readily obtained, and the task can be, and probably 
will be, better performed by some other officer. I will, however, say 
that I think that the present classification by value has all the defects 
of a purely ad valorem rate, and that in carpet-wools the doubling the 
rate per pound at a certain point in value is the worst possible expres¬ 
sion of the ad valorem system. It offers a temptation to fraud and 
perjury such as no government should, and from which it must inevi¬ 
tably, suffer loss. 

21. I am convinced, by what I learn in social intercourse, that money 
is paid by arriving passengers to customs inspectors, of baggage, and 
that such payments are considered by passengers as the general rule, 
not in many cases for the purpose of fraudulently entering goods with¬ 
out payment of proper duties, but simply as a douceur , or fee, to obtain 
early and speedy attention. Even in the latter aspect, this practice is 
demoralizing, and reduces the customs officer to the level of the hotel- 
waiter or boot-black, while there can be no doubt, from the many de¬ 
tected cases, that bribery of the inspectors enables the perpetration of 
many frauds upon the revenue. It is unfortunate that the Treasury 
Department felt constrained to discontinue the enforced examination 
of all baggage at the barge office here, where a more close scrutiny and 
surveillance could be maintained than is possible upon the crowded 
and inconvenient piers of the steamship companies. But even on those 
piers I believe the long-standing abuses of douceurs and bribes might 
be abated by a vigorous discipline. In this office similar unauthorized 
fees were formerly received by employes, in some cases largely exceed¬ 
ing in the aggregate the recipient’s compensation from the Govern¬ 
ment, but by interdiction, supported by a firm and constant discipline, 
the practice has been entirely broken up. I can see no reason why 
similar measures should not be successful if applied to the inspection 
of passengers’ baggage, and also why they should not suppress other 
illegal practices of a similar nature in the customs service, which un¬ 
doubtedly exist to the demoralization of the employes and to the dis¬ 
credit of the administration with those who suffer from such exactions. 

22. The adherence to an ad valorem rate system, with such high rates, 
induces me to answer this query decidedly in the affirmative. I do 
not think there is much loss through smuggling, but there has been an 
immense loss through undervaluations, and I can conceive of no prac¬ 
ticable method to prevent this loss. Secretary Robert J. Walker, in 
his annual report on December 3,1845, in urging the enactment of the 
purely ad valorem tariff prepared by him, (which became law on July 
30, 1846,) laid down the general principles upon which this tariff was 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. CA1 

constructed, and among them suggested “that all specific duties be 
abolished and ad valorem duties substituted in their place, care being 
taken to guard against fraudulent invoices and undervaluation , and to assess 
duty upon the market value” It cannot be disputed that such “ care” 
has proven to be impracticable, and that neither consular certification, 
penal duties, nor any other statutory provision has been found effective 
in guarding against great losses in undervaluation. This was so under 
the u Walker tariff,’ 7 and the difficulties have been greatly enhanced 
since then by the great proportion of foreign goods consigned here for 
a market, and the invoices for which represent no actual sale, and con¬ 
sequently no basis for valuation by market value, forcing recourse to 
the difficult and faulty computation of a dutiable value prescribed by 
the ninth section of the act of March 3, 1883. That this impossibility 
of equitably enforcing a heavy tax inheres solely to the ad valorem 
method is evinced by the ease with which the present specific duty on 
distilled spirits is collected, a duty that on some grades exceeds four 
hundred per cent, ad valorem, yet it would be absolutely impossible to 
collect such a duty based upon values, since the temptation to under¬ 
valuation would be too strong to be resisted on the one hand or pre¬ 
vented on the other. 

I have in my answer to the sixteenth question ( supra. ,) shown the high 
average rate of duties imposed by us, as represented by a percentage 
on total imports, and that a large part of this is attributable to the ex¬ 
cessively high ad valorem duties, which are the source and nurse of 
most of the existing frauds, disputes, and malcontent attending the 
collection of customs duties. 

Upon a review of what I have written above, I observe that the 
queries attach to only a part of the field of customs administration, 
and they do not call for opinions regarding damage allowances, draw¬ 
backs, warehousing, official oaths and fees, and many other points of 
interest which I presume will be investigated by you. On some of 
these I have already sent communications to the Department, and will 
be prepared to promptly report further when required. 

In conclusion, I beg leave to add that I apjirehend my answers are 
so colored by my strong convictions regarding the impolicy of ad 
valorem rates that I may have inadvertently disregarded the points 
sought by you. If there is to be a positive adherence to our present 
ad valorem tariff, I admit that its defects in practice might be par¬ 
tially abated by a more thorough administration, requiring, as a part, 
a larger expenditure for salaries of certain important officers, an in¬ 
crease that would be returned many fold by the larger receipts in 
duties. Much of the present injustice, friction, contention, irritation, 
and consequent clamor and censure, might be prevented by judicious 
amendments of the law and regulations, some of which I have alluded 
to herein. At the best, however, all these would amount simply to 
making the best of a system that, with a heavy rate of tax and con¬ 
sidering human infirmities, can never be administered without grave 
losses to the revenue and to the people, both as taxpayers and con¬ 
sumers, and vexation and injury to importers. 

All of which is respectfully submitted by your obedient servant, 

SILAS W. BUET, 

Naval Officer. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


648 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 106. 


Additional Inquiry to Naval Officer at New York. 


Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , 1). C., September 30, 1885. 


Sir : I have read with care your interesting reply to my circular 
letter of the 27th ultimo. Your allusions to the condition of customs 
matters between 1868 and 1883 are instructive. The object of my cir¬ 
cular was to obtain accurate information from the local officers of the 
several ports respecting the condition of the service within the last 
few years, and also to ascertain what is its present condition. 

I desire, therefore, that you will, excepting where otherwise indi¬ 
cated herein, give to me your views on such of the inquiries, applying 
them, so far as applicable, to the execution of the custom law at the 
port of New York to-day. You will especially inform me whether or 
not the difficulty of obtaining by you a correction of returns made on 
invoices now exists; and also whether or not, and, if not, why not, 
weighers’ returns are now satisfactory to you. To the sixth inquiry 
you need not give more time; but to the seventh, eighth, and ninth, 
applied to the present date, I wish that your replies may give your 
opinion fully, and especially in regard to the present condition of the 
appraising department in New York. 

In reply to the twelfth, you are requested to be more specific in ex¬ 
plaining the relation of competitive examinations to what you deem 
the insufficient salaries of examiners, and also your views respecting 
the fitness of competitive examinations to obtain the most competent 
and upright experts in the character, quality, and market value of 
imports, from time to time, in the principal markets of the country of 
exportation. I do not need to trouble you further with the sixteenth, 
but I wish your views on the seventeenth, in connection with the thir¬ 
teenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. 

Your replies to the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty- 
first need not be enlarged, excepting to say specifically to what you 
refer by the phrase in the twenty-first, “ illegal practices of a similar 
nature in the customs service. ’ ’ 

The twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth need not be 
further dealt with by you. 

Truly, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING. 


Mr. Silas W. Burt, 

Naval Officer , New York , N. Y. 


No. 107. 

Port of New York. Naval Office, 

October 15, 1885. 

Sir : In compliance with the request conveyed in your letter of the 
30th ultimo, I have the honor to report further in regard to several of 
the points presented in your letter of August 27 last. 

I have to inform you that I do find obstacles in the way of a free com¬ 
munication with the appraiser, arising from the refusal of the collector 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 649 


to transmit the invoices to the appraiser, the authority to refuse being 
conferred by the Treasury Department. From 1878 to 1880,1 could com¬ 
municate directly with the appraiser, with great benefit to all interests 
and injury to none. 

This obstruction to the proper function of the naval officer is only a 
part of the general tendency, for ten years past, to degrade that officer. 
The Treasury Department has ignored his legal status, and because the 
collector is undeniably the principal officer of customs at the port has 
treated the naval officer as subordinate to the collector, when the law 
intended that he should be independent and co-operative in all matters 
touching the amount of duties collected. Though, at the port, the naval 
officer represents directly the Secretary of the Treasury as the guardian 
of the revenue, the collector’s influence has so overwhelmed the subor¬ 
dinates in the Treasury Department that, in the differences between the 
collector and the naval officer, the decision is generally given to the 
former in spite of reason and consistency. I trust you will not deem me 
prolix if I give an illustrative example, which may also be instructive 
as to decisions generally. Prior to October, 1884, both the collector and 
naval officer at this port were agreed in assessing lentils at 10 per cent., 
as vegetables. An entry clerk in the collector’s office, by inadvertence, 
passed an entry of lentils free, and when this office refused to coincide, 
the collector, in spite of long-continued practice, insisted upon the free 
entry, and the matter was referred to the Treasury Department, and the 
arguments on both sides were submitted. On October 21, the Depart¬ 
ment declared lentils free, as held by the collector, although during the 
whole discussion that officer was inconsistently exacting 10 per cent, on 
all entries of lentils. Of course, after the decision of the Department, 
they were admitted free. Subsequently the United States courts de¬ 
cided edible beans and pease to .be subject to duty of 10 per cent., as vege¬ 
tables, and on June 24, 1885, my predecessor wrote to the Department, 
again urging that lentils were dutiable at 10 per cent. No reply was 
ever received, but the collector soon after resumed the assessment of 10 
per cent., though the Departmental ruling (Synopsis, 6608) has never 
been revoked, and probably, under its terms, lentils are still admitted 
free at other ports. 

You ask if weighers’ returns are now satisfactory to me. Through 
the new methods adopted in 1879, the weighing of merchandise, so far 
as accuracy of weights is concerned, has been conducted in a manner 
substantially satisfactory. From that date there has been a gradual 
improvement in the promptness of returns, though in this respect there 
is room for further improvement. I can only urge, in addition, the more 
complete organization of all the customs officers making metric tests 
under a single expert head. This would accomplish a uniformity of 
procedure and.an economy in the conduct of the business. 

In regard to the seventh, eighth, and ninth queries in your circular, 
I can only give general answers. I believe that your special agents 
have reported as to the classes of goods where undervaluation was un¬ 
deniable, and I have not the power to make such investigations as would 
add to your information on that subject. All the reports of appraise¬ 
ment oil every entry of merchandise finally come to my office, and are 
subjected to a careful scrutiny, and in this manner I become apprised 
of many defects, not specifically of general undervaluation on any line 
of goods, but of inconsistencies, ignorance, and carelessness. Before I 
enlarge upon this point, I desire to say that the present condition of 


650 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the appraiser’s office here is the outgrowth of many years of futile at¬ 
tempts to perform a difficult task— i. e., the correct valuation of im¬ 
ports—and th is futility is not altogether attributable to bad administra¬ 
tion, but in part to the almost impracticable character of the task. 
However, to my own knowledge, for years much of the service in that 
department has been bad. There have been many efficient and upright 
men engaged in the work of appraisement, conspicuous among whom 
has been the present appraiser, but there have been associated with 
them men without qualifications as appraisers or examiners, and others 
untrustworthy, as many detected frauds have proven. I have known 
men to be appointed examiners, and even appraisers, of classes of goods 
they had never had the least previous knowledge of, and others with 
the more dangerous equipment of a “little knowledge,” allied with a 
conceit of omniscience in regard to their professed specialty. I know 
that the present appraiser recognizes the peculiar conditions that en¬ 
viron liis official task, and that he is earnestly striving to improve the 
character of the service, but, in consideration of the difficult nature of 
the work and scarcity of trained workers to be obtained, no decided 
reform can be improvised, and it will require patient and long-continued 
effort before any great improvement can be manifested. 

In the final liquidation of entries in this office many errors are daily 
detected in the appraisers’ returns, which may be attributed more gen¬ 
erally to carelessness than to ignorance, and yet if not corrected would 
injure the revenue and weaken the confidence of importers in the accu¬ 
racy and fairness of our assessments. These errors are in classification 
as well as in valuation, and are confined to no particular classes of goods. 
As examples of these, I will quote several current cases of errors detected 
in this office and returned to the appraiser for correction : 

(1.) An entry of worsted dress-goods, weighing over 4 ounces per 
square yard, and therefore dutiable at 35 cents per pound and 40 per 
cent, ad valorem, were reported as under 4 ounces per square yard and 
dutiable at 9 cents per square ydrd and 40 per cent, ad valorem. 

(2.) Upon an importation of fifteen cases of woollen cloaks, nine were 
entered for immediate consumption and six were warehoused. Although 
all were identical, the warehoused goods were advanced in value and 
the others not. 

(3.) Certain goods were classified as “worsteds in part,” at 7 cents 
per square yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem, when they were dutiable 
at 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem. 

(4.) Certain alcoholic perfumery, dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem, 
was returned as ‘ 1 manufactures of metal, ’ ’ at 45 per cent, ad valorem. 
Tooth-brushes, dutiable at 30 per cent., were returned as “quill tooth¬ 
picks,” at 20 per cent. 

(5.) Goods returned as rugs, at 40 per cent, ad valorem, should have 
been whole carpets, dutiable at 45 cents per square yard and 30 per 
cent, ad valorem. 

In all the above cases the corrections were made as indicated. It is 
conceded that, in the transaction of the vast amount of business at this 
port, a certain ratio of such errors may naturally be expected, particu¬ 
larly in the most busy periods of the year, and which errors it is the 
peculiar duty of this office to detect and have corrected. But there are 
a greater number of these errors than are excusable on any plea, and 
they indicate defects either in the service or in the methods of adminis¬ 
tration ; and I think, too, that they suggest the possible perpetration of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 651 


errors in appraisement which it is not the province of this office to de¬ 
tect, and, indeed, which it would be difficult for anybody to detect 
without special acquirements and an examination of the goods. I mean 
that the errors that are detected disclose a carelessness and irresponsi¬ 
bility that is not necessarily confined to the field where I and my sub¬ 
ordinates glean. And though I am able to make these disclosures, I am 
not as ready with the practical remedy, since this is directly involved 
in the difficulty of obtaining competent and trustworthy officials to 
perform the delicate and precise work of appraisement. Thorough 
discipline and better methods of administration may reduce to the mini¬ 
mum the errors of inadvertence and haste, but these would not remedy 
the defective valuations of merchandise. 

In attempting to measure with precision the absolute efficiency and 
accuracy of an appraiser of merchandise, we lack an infallible standard. 
The exact market price of any certain article upon a certain day in a 
certain mart seems a priori to be not only an assured fact, but fact, but 
also one readily attainable; but in practice it seems to evade the grasp. 
From my own official experience, I should assume that an appraiser 
who never varies more than 5 per cent, from the average market 
values as deduced from the best sources of information open to the de¬ 
partment is a fairly competent officer. I would further qualify this by 
placing the limit of divergence somewhat higher and lower in certain 
grades of goods; on staple goods the limit should be low, and on fancy 
goods and those of certain materials the limit should be higher. In 
an examination of a candidate for position of examiner of any class of 
merchandise, I should consider the above variation as normal. 

Granted a force of appraisers and examiners as efficient and upright 
as could possibly be procured, I would insist upon two fundamental 
rules as essential to any satisfactory accomplishment of the work : First. 
That the assessments of value should be uniform. A regular rate of 
undervaluation of any article of importation means a certain loss to the 
revenue, which may be repaired, if detected, by regular additions to 
the invoiced values, and, if not detected, may be replaced by a legis¬ 
lative increase of taxes; but such a regular undervaluation works no 
relative injury to the importers. On the other hand, differential and 
unequal assessments inflict injustice upon honest importers which can¬ 
not be repaired, and is the source of great and justifiable discontent. 
This injustice is not restricted to original appraisements, but often oc¬ 
curs in reappraisements. One of these cases is now before me, where 
two importers of the same goods by the same vessel have been very 
differently treated; in one case the dutiable value was reappraised one 
hundred and thirteen (113) per cent, higher than in the other. I have 
requested a reconsideration, and without doubt the values will be 
equalized, but there should be such a system of valuation as would pre¬ 
vent such disparities, and the discontent of importers and discredit of 
the customs service that follow them. 

Second. That in every group of dutiable goods to be appraised by 
an examiner, there should be selected some staple article or fabric as 
standard or “key-note” for the group. By concentration of attention 
and research upon the prices current and fluctuations of foreign value 
in a single article, there would be a greater probability of accuracy than 
if the same attention were distributed among all the articles in the 
group. In the absence of positive information as to changes in the 
foreign values of other articles in a group, their appraisement could 


652 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


be based upon the current valuation of the “key” article; in other 
words, its fluctuations would be communicated proportionately to the 
other articles grouped with it. This course would tend to a systematic 
valuation, and consuls could keep the appraising officers apprised of all 
changes in the values of the ‘ ‘ keys.’ ’ Such a method would be of great 
advantage to appraisers at the smaller ports. I will concede that some 
articles could not thus be collated into groups, and would have to be 
treated sui generis , but I believe that with our extensive schedules of 
dutiable articles, constantly increasing by “assimilation” and other 
additions, some such arrangement and simplification are the only feasi¬ 
ble means of relief from some of the most gross defects in our assess¬ 
ments based upon foreign values. The two rules should be supple¬ 
mented‘by such a recast of business methods as would enforce direct 
responsibility, and break up that dependence upon individual and ex¬ 
clusive examiners of the various lines of goods which has worked such 
injuries in the past. 

I believe the position of appraiser at this port to be the most difficult 
one in the entire United States service outside of Washington. The 
delicate function of determining values of goods at all dates and in all 
the marts of the world is complicated and often thwarted by the inade¬ 
quacy of the information and the inefficiency of the agencies through 
which a determination is to be reached. 

I believe that the present appraiser is making such progress as de¬ 
fective methods and instruments will permit. He brought to his official 
task a large experience and trained ability, and has accomplished a 
marked improvement in all respects since he assumed office. Whatever 
reformatory changes may now be introduced, it will require a consider¬ 
able time to obtain the best results from them. The work is beset with 
perplexities and difficulties, and the conservative influence of old 
methods will be a drag, both within and without the service, while the 
highest possible attainment when reached will not be altogether satis¬ 
factory, since the ad valorem system has the inherent taint of impracti¬ 
cability. 

In regard to my expression as to the inadequacy of compensation 
allowed examiners of goods, I had reference only to such of them as 
appraise fabrics of a complex character, or where there are frequent 
changes in the composition, styles, fashion, and values. I did not in¬ 
tend to express or infer any relation between the pay of examiners and 
their selection by competitive examination. Whatever the method of 
selection, the matter of compensation would control to some extent the 
class of applicants, and if too low would deter applications for position 
by those outside best qualified. There are certain staple goods which 
are so regular in all respects that a qualified examiner might be procured 
from those in the lower grades of the appraiser’s force. Many good 
examiners now in service were educated in classification and valuation 
of certain goods while holding inferior places in the appraiser’s depart¬ 
ment. 

In my letter of September 21,1 alluded to the experience in competi¬ 
tive examinations for these places as indicating an inability to value 
goods by the inspection of samples alone. Since then further considera¬ 
tion induces me to modify the deduction that this inability would neces¬ 
sarily denote a hopeless incapacity to appraise. The failures may be 
in some cases attributable to the great range of valuation by a Govern¬ 
ment examiner, which must cover the whole field of imports of any 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 653 


class of goods, while in private business such a range is rare by any 
single importing concern. In a recent competition for examiner of 
china and all other ceramic wares, each competitor claiming to be an 
expert was found qualified in certain lines of goods and lacking in 
others, according to his business experiences, but would probably soon 
acquire equal proficiency in the whole field. It fact, I am informed 
that the appointees selected from this examination have been very 
satisfactory. 

In reply to your direct query, I would answer that, in my opinion, as 
good examiners can be procured by open competition as in any other 
way, while this method is protected from the abuses so often manifested 
in the old methods of selection. I believe, also, that the competitive 
method is less liable to imposition upon the service of persons in the 
interest of importers. This cannot be altogether guarded against, but 
it would be more easy to impose upon the appointing power through 
subtle political and personal influences in the absence of open com¬ 
petition. 

Permit me to say here that I hope, in your quest for some better method 
of assessment by ad valorem rates, you will not be favorably inclined 
to the scheme of “home valuation.’ 7 A bill proposing this method, 
with penalty for undervaluation by the privilege of Government pur¬ 
chase at invoice values plus 10 per cent, was prepared by the chamber 
of commerce of this city in 1880, and introduced in Congress. On 
April 28 of that year I made a report on this bill to Secretary Sherman, 
by request, and adduced such arguments against the home-valuation 
method as led the projectors to desist from pressing its passage. I pre¬ 
sume my report is in the files of your office, and, should the home-val¬ 
uation plan be resuscitated, the arguments advanced five years ago are 
quite as applicable now. 

Among the statutory provisions to sustain the ad valorem system, the 
“moiety law” was the most radical and stringent. I believe there has 
been a more general undervaluation since its repeal. I do not believe, 
however, that it would be wise to revive either the distfibutory shares 
to the principal officers of customs or the seizure of papers and books. 
Both the provisions are impolitic, and the seizure of papers, &c., is 
such a harsh and arbitrary exercise of sovereign power in a free country 
that it should be resorted! to only when the public safety absolutely de¬ 
mands. I believe that the sixteenth section of the “anti-moiety law” 
(act of June .22, 1874) should be repealed, since it is impossible to prove 
fraudulent undervaluation under its provisions. 

In my original answer to your twenty-first query, I meant by “illegal 
practices of a similar nature in the customs service” the receipt of 
gratuities, not only by the inspectors examining passengers’ baggage, 
but by those officers on other accounts, and by others, including clerks, 
&c., down to almost the lowest grade of messengers. I know of nothing 
more difficult to obtain than direct and positive evidence of such prac¬ 
tices, even when, by general consent, they are admitted as existing. 
Merchants and brokers have had an unfortunate experience in com¬ 
plaints of these exactions, since the culprits have in many cases had 
sufficient influence to escape dismissal, and remained in place to wreak 
their vengeance upon the complainants by such annoyances and delays 
as placed the latter at disadvantage with their less candid business 
rivals. I have therefore been obliged to promise not to divulge the 
names of my informants, but know them to be trustworthy. They 


654 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

assure me that gratuities are common throughout the collector’s depart¬ 
ment, and, while small in individual amount—ranging from twenty-five 
cents to a dollar each—they make a large annual aggregate in the ex¬ 
penses of custom-house transactions. In nearly all, if not in all, cases 
these gratuities are not directly demanded, but, if they are not paid, 
there are vexatious requirements, objections, and delays, sufficiently 
plausible as a defence in case of complaint. I hope it will not be con¬ 
sidered invidious on my part if I also say that I am assured by the same 
informants that no such gratuities are paid in the naval office. I began 
the work of suppressing these in 1878, and, by strict and persistent dis¬ 
cipline, soon succeeded in thoroughly eradicating abuses that had existed 
for half a century. It therefore affords me peculiar satisfaction to know 
that there has been no retrogression in this respect. 

I have answered your queries candidly and so far as I could from 
personal knowledge or trustworthy information at my disposal. I have 
run the risk of criticising the business methods in other offices, and I 
trust that your invitation to do so will relieve me from the imputation 
of disparagement of my official associates. You may find tedious my 
constant refrain that the satisfactory collection of high ad valorem 
duties is an impracticable attainment. But I am so imbued with this 
conviction that I can conceive of no possible escape from some of the 
difficulties that surround our present course but a resort to the simpler 
system of specific rates adopted by every other important nation. Yet 
so attractive are the theoretical features of ad valorem rates, and so ap¬ 
parently insuperable the obstacles to any reform in customs collection 
laws, that the present methods of assessment will probably be con¬ 
tinued. In such case it seems to me that both the personnel and the 
procedure in the appraiser’s department could be greatly improved. 
Some progress has been made in securing a better service, and this 
should be accompanied by such changes in business methods as will 
secure uniformity in assessments and simplicity in the regulations un¬ 
der which these are made. I beg to add that I believe it is an oppor¬ 
tune time to accomplish such reforms, now that we have an appraiser so 
well epuipped by experience 'and special ability, and whose devotion 
to duty and personal integrity are beyond question. 

All of which is respectfully submitted by your obedient servant, 

SILAS W. BUBT, 

Naval Officer. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 655 


No. 108. 

H. S. BEATTIE—Appointed Surveyor of Customs, New York, June 27, 1885. 

Custom-House, New York, Surveyor’s Office, 

October 6, 1885. 

Dear Sir : In answer to the interrogatories contained in the printed 
-circular, marked “ confidential, ” under date of August 27,1885,1 have 
the honor to make the following answers: 

First .—The evidence that the rates of duty within the last few years 
have not been levied and collected as the law prescribes is of a pre¬ 
sumptive nature. An inspector, in examining baggage, may fail to 
discover and report articles which have not been declared; and an in¬ 
spector, in discharging merchandise, may fail to notice that the goods 
discharged do not agree with the goods permitted. 

One of the most notable instances of the latter failure is the well- 
known Lawrence case, in which the attempted fraud might have been 
detected by a sharp and experienced discharging officer, as the sus¬ 
picion of such an officer might fairly be excited by difference in the 
appearance, weight, &c., between the packages sent to the public store 
and those sent to the importer. Of course, ih this Lawrence case the 
fraud was made possible through the venal connection of the deputy 
collector with Lawrence. 

Invoices have been found which purported to contain an account of 
goods upon which a low rate of duty was paid, while a portion of them 
paid a higher rate, indicating, apparently, that the importer hoped to 
see the cases upon which the lower rate of duty was paid sent to the 
public store. 

There is no good reason to believe that efforts similar to these are 
not now made to defraud the revenue. 

Second .—There is evidence of such action on the part of weighers 
and gaugers as to indicate that on the part of the former merchandise 
is sometimes returned as weighed when it has not been weighed ; that 
excessive tares are allowed; and, as to the latter, (gaugers,) that in 
some cases they discriminate in favor of the importer for a considera¬ 
tion. 

The collection of the full amount of duty prescribed by law on arti¬ 
cles which pay purely specific rates depends on the honesty of the 
weigher or gauger; and while the evidence against the integrity of 
some of these officers is such as to produce a moral conviction of their 
guilt, without additional facilities for the discovery of evidence, through 
the seizure of the books and papers of importers, legal proof of their 
guilt cannot be made. 

Third .—The appraiser is supposed to measure accurately the goods 
which are contained in the public-store packages, and his measurements 
are noted on the invoices. If the measurements of the public-store 
packages agree with those on the invoice, it is assumed that the meas¬ 
urements of the other packages on the invoice are correct. The critical 
attention of the liquidating clerks in the collector’s office, who ought 
to have an extensive knowledge of the goods imported, would assist in 
the detection of glaring discrepancies in the invoices. 

Fourth .—I have no knowledge of any recent illustration of the collu¬ 
sion referred to in the fourth interrogatory; but with the Lawrence 
case, already referred to, in view, I see no reason to assume that such 
collusion may not exist. 


656 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Fifth .—(See answer second.) A comparison by the liquidating clerks 
of the invoices of different importers would assist in detecting the direc¬ 
tion in which legal proof, might be made. 

Sixth .—Most of the troubles between the importers and Government 
officials upon the question of rates of duty are attributable to the 
vagueness of the tariff laws. Until the meaning of a tariff act has been 
judicially determined, the bringing of numerous suits against collectors 
of customs is inevitable. 

The decision of the Treasury Department, under date of July 2,1885, 
in the matter of ‘ ‘ Protests and Appeals on 1 Charges, 7 7 7 will, in my judg¬ 
ment, do more to prevent the bringing of suits than any action which has 
been taken in the last fifteen years. 

Equity would seem to require the payment of interest and costs, 
where the verdict is against the Government, in suits brought against 
a collector to recover for overpaid duties. In some cases the Govern¬ 
ment might lose by such payments, but I see no reason why a success¬ 
ful suitor against the Government should not be compensated for the 
use of his money the same as he would be had it been used by a cor¬ 
poration or private individual. 

It is generally conceded that in the southern district of Hew York 
another part of the district or circuit court should be organized, as the 
time consumed in these courts in hearing patent and other cases leaves 
comparatively little time for the hearing of cases which arise out of 
the administration of the customs and internal-revenue laws. In the 
case of The United States vs. George Hughes & Co., which was, I be¬ 
lieve, tried in 1875, and which arose out of alleged undervaluations, 
n ot less than six weeks of the time of the court were consumed in its 
trial, although the amount involved did not exceed $90,000. A more 
recent illustration of the time consumed in the trial of a cause is the 
case of The United States vs. Boyd. 

Seventh and Eighth .—In respect to the collection of duty upon mer¬ 
chandise subject to ad valorem duties, the duty should, I think, be 
levied upon the value of merchandise as found by the appraiser. He 
is designated by law as the official whose judgment is the accepted 
basis for the assessment of duty. He is furnished with certain methods 
of informing his judgment, and he should use all the means availa¬ 
ble to him that he may arrive at a correct valuation of merchandise. 
What those means are must be largely left to him. The principal 
sources of his information must be the prices named in the invoices 
which pass under his inspection, and it is to be presumed that due 
weight is given to the invoices of goods imported by houses of high 
standing, whose manner of doing business is beyond reproach. Assist¬ 
ance may be received through information obtained from consuls and 
from intercourse with importers. But the changes in the manner of 
doing business—as, for instance, in the case of imported silks—within 
the past ten years are so radical that possibly some new system may 
have to be devised to meet the changes in the methods of doing busi¬ 
ness. Formerly silk goods were imported by j obbing-houses; to-day— 
they are largely imported by the agents of manufacturers, and this 
change in the mode of doing business has to a great extent caused 
the existing confusion in the valuation of certain lines of goods, such 
as silks and embroideries. 

Ninth .—There is not satisfactory evidence that appraisers report 
false dutiable values of articles. They have done so in the past, but 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 657 

there is no evidence accessible, under existing methods of investiga¬ 
tion, that many, if any, of such reports are now made. 

Tenth .—The statutory law provides that the time, place, and cir¬ 
cumstances of examining dutiable values shall be in the discretion of 
the appraiser, deputy appraiser, and examiner. 

Eleventh .—I hardly think it possible to obtain a trustworthy esti¬ 
mate of the percentage of undervaluations for any series of years. 

Twelfth ,—In passing upon the value of imported goods, the assistant 
appraiser is chiefly responsible. The examiner passes upon the goods, 
which the assistant appraiser rarely sees, but the latter is required to 
sign every invoice, and in doing so he ought to examine the invoice 
to ascertain that the examiner has made no mistakes. In all instances 
where the examiner may be in doubt as to a particular case, it is cus¬ 
tomary for him to call upon the assistant appraiser to make a personal 
examination of the goods, so that the assistant appraiser is really the 
one upon whom responsibility rests. The general appraiser signs his 
name to an invoice in a ministerial capacity, and his duty seems to be 
mainly to provide general rules for the guidance of the officers at 
large. 

Thirteenth .—In the case of wool, the duty thereon being based upon 
its cost at the port of shipment, a slight variation in making up the 
invoice would place the wool in a lower grade of duty than it would 
be were the invoice properly made out. A consul, by omitting to as¬ 
certain whether the invoice in such a case were properly made out, 
could readily assist in occasional loss to the revenue; but I think that 
the official sins of consuls consist rather in acts of omission than of 
commission, and that there is not much affirmative evidence of their 
conspiring to present false evidence of foreign values. 

Fourteenth .—In cases in which there is a return of false value on im¬ 
ported merchandise, the appraiser is the official who is directly re¬ 
sponsible for it. It is his business to fix the value, and he is the person 
upon whom, if the fixed value is not correct, responsibility should be 
placed. Government officials have not at present the facilities which 
they formerly enjoyed for obtaining evidence of violations of laws by 
importers and dishonest officials. The repeal of the moiety act has 
undoubtedly withdrawn some of the facilities which, under it, existed 
for the discovery of frauds upon the revenue. The statute, in my judg¬ 
ment, was made unpopular through the venality and blackmailing 
proclivities of special agents of the Treasury Department, who took 
advantages of its provisions to enrich themselves. I do not think that 
its re-enactment would be popular; but from personal knowledge of the 
cases of attempted fraud upon the revenue which were developed while 
it was in operation, and repeated interchange of views with Federal 
officials, including many customs officers, and the majority of court 
officials in the southern district of New York for over a period of fif¬ 
teen years, I am satisfied that increased facilities for the ascertainment 
of the contents of the business records of dishonest importers should 
be furnished. 

Fifteenth .—It is fair to assume that the revenue is being continually 
defrauded, but it is almost impossible to obtain such evidence as would 
be admitted in a court of law with any reasonable assurance that a 
verdict for the Government could be secured. 

Sixteenth ,—A change from ad valorem to specific duty rates would 
reduce the tendency to venality and corruption, for the reason, among 

42 A 


658 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


others, that under the ad valorem system the values to be determined 
are foreign values, and under the specific system the quantities to be 
determined are home quantities. Further, the fraud which comes 
through the operations necessary to determine foreign values would be 
eliminated. 

I would also suggest that one advantage of specific duties is that I 
think they tend to induce the importation of a higher class of com¬ 
modities than those which are brought in under ad valorem duties, 
for the reason that, the duty being equal in both cases, it is so heavy 
upon cheap goods that it becomes unprofitable to import them, while 
it is comparatively light upon high-priced goods, and the advantage, 
therefore, is in favor of the consumer, who would be furnished with a 
better article. It would be also in the nature of a protection to the 
home manufacturer of the lower-class goods. 

It also occurs to me that if the specific system were applied to other 
kinds of imported merchandise than those of liquors and cigars, the 
consumer would be more likely to get what he desired to buy, as the 
Government brand upon the goods would be an authentication of their 
grade or quality. 

Seventeenth .—From answers already made in this communication, 
my opinion clearly is that the absolute repeal of the moiety act and the 
modification of the act of 1863, respecting the seizure of books and 
papers, have diminished the facilities for detecting false reports of the 
appraisers. 

Eighteenth .—The consular agents, without expert knowledge, cannot, 
with more than approximate exactness, verify the correctness of in¬ 
voice values. The fee to the consul in England is 10s. 6<i, and 4s. 6d. 
is usually charged for the oath. There is a uniform charge for each 
shipment, irrespective of the quantity or value. 

Nineteenth .—Under the decision of the courts, an aggrieved importer 
has relief as against incompetency in fixing the dutiable value of goods, 
as determined under the present procedure, and, of course, he has 
always relief against known fraud in fixing such values. The existing 
machinery for securing to an honest importer a remedy for every wrong 
is, in my judgment, sufficient for all practical purposes. 

Twentieth .—I would require more time than I* have had at my dis¬ 
posal since the receipt of your letter, to furnish a suitable answer to 
the twentieth interrogatory. However, if necessary, I will make an 
effort to forward you an answer to it during the present week. 

Twenty-first .—The practice referred to in the twenty-first interroga¬ 
tory is believed to, and I think does, prevail at this port. Since I 
assumed office I have had several complaints made against officers for 
such practices, and in each of these cases I have immediately, upon 
satisfying myself that there was reasonable ground for the charge, 
recommended their removal from the service, and they have been re¬ 
moved. The enforcement of the strictest discipline, constant surveil¬ 
lance of the men, and their instant dismissal from the service when 
discovered in wrong-doing, seems to be the only methods available for 
the prevention of these practices. A greater effort than has been hereto¬ 
fore made should be made to procure for inspection duty men of integ¬ 
rity. Much too little attention is given to the question of character in 
the selection of men for this class of the service. Their compensation 
seems to be sufficient for the intelligence required, and is considerably 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


059 


above that of the average mercantile clerk. Complaint is occasion¬ 
ally made that, by reason of their being continually removed from one 
point to another, they are subjected to a trifling daily expense for 
car-fare, which, some of them claim, was formerly allowed from a con¬ 
tingent fund provided for such purposes. I believe it in the interest 
of the service to remove the cause for this or any other reasonable com¬ 
plaint on their part, so that they may have no complaint against the 
Government which would lead a callous conscience to justify itself in 
wrong-doing. My impression is that most of these men expect to sup¬ 
plement their stated compensation by the reception of gratuities, and 
that, the evil being one which has its root in the moral character of the 
individual, the policy to be immediately pursued to eradicate it is to 
remove, as quickly as the convenience of the service will permit, those 
who have been living in an officially immoral atmosphere, and to in¬ 
sist upon the very best vouchers for honesty being furnished by the 
new men who may be introduced into the service. 

As an aid to the removal of the evil, I think that at this port there 
should be more assistance furnished for the proper supervision of in¬ 
spectors, weighers, and gaugers. This force, I am satisfied, has not 
been properly supervised in the past. In fact, in order to secure proper 
supervision, some man sufficiently removed from the regular force, both 
by difference in his compensation and the dignity of his position, should 
be able to be in attendance upon the arrival of any vessel that may 
come into port. When, as sometimes happens, several arrive at about 
the same time, it is utterly impossible to cover the inspection force so 
as to make them feel that they are under official supervision such as 
may result in their disgrace if they are detected in wrong. 

Twenty-second .—I do not think that Congress has carried the duties 
to so high a figure that the effort or disposition to smuggle is thereby 
much increased. Of course, if duties on articles were so low that they 
could be as cheaply purchased in the home as in the foreign market 
there would be no profitable motive for smuggling; but the reduction 
of the duties on certain classes of merchandise, as in silks, does not, 
from all the information tha-1 can gather, lessen the efforts of merchants 
who desire to take advantage of their rivals by dishonorable methods 
to defraud the revenue. It really necessitates, on their part, an in¬ 
creased effort to commit fraud, as otherwise they could not survive. 

I would remark here that the present administration is the object of 
considerable odium from emigrants and citizens in poor circumstances 
coming from foreign countries, from the fact that seizures of articles of 
trifling value, often in the aggregate not amounting to the value of 
over $6, are seized and duty exacted upon them, while persons of wealth, 
in view of the Astor decision, are permitted to land duty free many 
thousands of dollars’ worth at a time. I have observed an article worth 
not exceeding four or five dollars (the only dutiable article in the pos¬ 
session of the passenger) seized and duty exacted. In view of the large 
number of poor people who come to this port with little articles of 
about the same amount in value, it would seem to me that the admin¬ 
istration would popularize itself by returning to the $5 limit which 
formerly obtained. I have not yet learned at whose suggestion the $1 
limit was fixed, but I am under the impression that the determination 
was a comparatively recent one, and, like some other practices which 
were introduced immediately prior to the present administration taking 


660 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


office, the effect excites a prejudice in the popular mind against the 
present government. 

Twenty-third .—I think it has. 

Twenty-fourth .—The facilities for making legal proof to fasten crime 
upon the suspected are so few that prosecuting officers would hardly 
be justified in incurring the expense which would be involved in making 
the attempt. The power to seize books and correspondence in cases of 
fairly well-founded suspicion would frequently disclose sufficient evi¬ 
dence of fraud to secure conviction ; but such power should be so exer¬ 
cised as not to allow the force of the Government to oppress those against 
whom it is directed, and an official who can be shown to have misused 
the power thus granted should receive prompt punishment therefor. 

In the case of weighers and gaugers, as I have already stated, evi¬ 
dence presumptive of fraud exists. The tare of many articles of mer¬ 
chandise not scheduled has frequently been obtained by the weigher, 
without the direction of the collector or any other apparent authority, 
by directly connecting with the merchant and taking the tare from his 
invoice. In this port that practice has been so general and so* long 
continued that offence is taken at the order of a superior officer when 
he insists upon his subordinates living up to the requirements of the 
statutes. Individuals are designated by the chief weighers to do the 
taring for a district or a section, apparently on the plea that it is in 
the line of economy of administration, but much more likely for the 
reason that by having the same persons assigned to this work a chan¬ 
nel for corruption can be successfully laid. The returns which pur¬ 
port to show that actual weights have been taken are in some cases 
shown to have been the result of mere copying from the returns of city 
weighers; and in some cases weights are returned by a so-called lead- 
pencil act, by which is meant that a weigher has been occasionally 
permitted to fill out the weights in the dock-book or return from his 
head. Gaugers are known to receive compensation from importers 
for making returns of gauges some time prior to the time when an 
official return can be furnished, for which a consideration is received 
from the importer of so much per cask. That such a practice results 
in and offers an inducement to a gauger to gauge generously and lib¬ 
erally in behalf of the importer and against the Government there 
can be no doubt. To make legal proof against persons suspected of 
these practices, obviously it is necessary either to bribe the confiden¬ 
tial clerk of the importer or to seize the evidences of his payments to 
customs officers. 

I have now in my possession written evidence of such returns having 
been made and the receipt of a consideration therefor. This evidence 
comes to me in the only way that such evidence can be procured, 
namely, either through bribing somebody or getting it under the pledge 
of absolute secrecy. Through the latter means I have received the 
evidence which is temporarily in my custody. Whether an importer 
would set up the claim that this sort of service is rendered to him in 
an unofficial manner, and is paid for as a service rendered to him by 
the officer in his private time, and that therefore no wrong is done to 
the Government, I cannot state; but that such a practice obtains, and 
that it tends to demoralize and corrupt the service I have no doubt. 

Some of these matters have been brought to the attention of the 
collector by me, but as yet no plan has been devised, and I do not see 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 661 


that any can be devised until after I am informed of what, if any, 
assistance can be had from those who have the facilities for the pro¬ 
curement of legal evidence. 

I simply deem it my duty in this connection to draw your attention 
to the matter. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours, 

H. S. BEATTIE. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Washington, D. C. 


No. 109. 

Treasury Department Office of the Secretary, 

Washington , I). C ., October 14, 1885. 

Sir : In the latter part of your answer to the twenty-second question, 
you speak of a $1 and of a $5 limit. The Customs Regulations of 1874, 
article 1059, give to collector of customs u discretionary power to remit 
the assessment of duties in cases where the dutiable value of an impor¬ 
tation is less than $1 in amount; also to dispense with the seizure of 
goods less than $1 in value, except in cases of habitual or intentional 
violations of the revenue laws or prohibited importations.” 

In January, 1878, Collector Arthur advised the Department that 
u while the general practice of this office has been governed by the pro¬ 
visions of article 1059 of the Regulations, limiting the free admission 
to packages of less than $1 in dutiable value, free permits have been 
granted in cases where the duties amounted to less than $2, for the 
reason, as reported in the letters of my predecessors of December 19, 
1865, and July 17, 1869, that the cost of collection would exceed the 
amount of duties. * * * Such practice by this office as reported by 
my predecessors was not disapproved by the Department.” 

The Department is not aware of any regulation fixing the limit at $5, 
but, as you refer to such a limit, please furnish the Department by return 
mail with whatever information you have in regard to this matter. 

Respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

H. S. Beattie, Esq., 

Surveyor of Customs , New YorJc City. 


No. 110. 

Custom-House, New York, 

Surveyor's Office , October 16, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your communication of the 14th instant, relative to 
a practice which has at times obtained at this port, of admitting articles 
the dutiable value of which in the aggregate did not exceed 15, I did 
not refer to any customs regulation, but to the custom observed by the 
inspectors, consented to by the appraisers and permitted by the col¬ 
lector, of passing articles found in the baggage of passengers, of the 
amount aforesaid in dutiable value, free. The practice, as I am in- 



662 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


formed, had become so general as to have all the force and effect of any 
practice or custom authorized by a statutory provision or a Treasury 
regulation. 

I have made diligent inquiry of the subordinates of the present collec¬ 
tor and surveyor to ascertain the origin of or authority for such departure 
from the requirements of the regulations; but while I have found a 
general consensus of opinion as to the prevalence of such a custom ob¬ 
taining on the wharf, I have been unable to obtain any official record 
authorizing or approving of the custom. 

General Williams, the deputy collector who represented the collector 
at the barge office prior to the expiration of the Starin contract, assures 
me that the practice was supposed to have the approval of the collector, 
and presumably of the Secretary of the Treasury, and furnishes the fol¬ 
lowing extract from a report which was made by him to Collector 
Robertson, the date, however, of which he has not furnished, and the 
original of which Collector Hedden appears to be unable to find: 

U I find that it has been the practice on the wharf that when the duty 
on merchandise found in baggage did not exceed $5, to pass the same 
free. My attention was called to this practice by complaints of passen¬ 
gers whose luggage, having been mislaid, was afterwards found in 
‘public store,’ and upon the appraisement of the same they were com¬ 
pelled to pay duty at the custom-house 5 whereas, if the case had been 
acted on at the barge office or on the wharf, according to the practice 
in vogue, it would have been passed f ree, the duty being under $5. At the 
custom-house duty amounting to $1 and over is collected.” 

The requirements of the regulations having been so long and so gen¬ 
erally disregarded in this as in some other matters to which I referred, 
I intended to merely convey to the mind of the honorable Secretary of 
the Treasury that the strict enforcement of the regulations under the 
present customs officers was not calculated to make the administration 
popular with passengers bringing with them petty articles, such as 
trifling presents for friends, having no intention to defraud the revenue, 
and availing themselves of a privilege heretofore enjoyed through the 
loose practices permitted by executive officers at this port. Briefly, the 
enforcement of the provisions of the regulations has developed com¬ 
plaint and clamor against the administration 011 the part of passengers 
because they are now denied privileges which they heretofore enjoyed 
without authority of law. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

H. S. BEATTIE, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Washington , D. C. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 663 


No. 111. 


H. WHEELER COMBS—Appointed United States General Appraiser December 4, 

1877. 

Office of the Board of U. S. General Appraisers, 
Corner of Washington and Hubert Streets, 

New York , October , 1885. 

Sir: Referring to Department circular of August 27, requesting care¬ 
ful and official replies to the twenty-four (24) questions contained therein* 
I have the honor to state that 1 would have replied sooner but for the 
fact that since its receipt I have been constantly engaged on the official 
work of the commission of which I am chairman ; consequently I have 
not had the opportunity to give as much thought to the investigation 
of the subjects as their importance demands. Many of the questions 
cau only be answered after long experience in the customs service and 
practice in customs matters. I came into the service in July, 1884, and 
have had but little over one year’s experience; consequently my answers 
are based more on theory than practice or experience. 

1. The monthly reports of appraisers and collectors forwarded to the 
general appraisei s show that at different ports merchandise is frequently 
erroneously classified, and in consequence the proper rate of duty not 
collected. Manufactures of two or more different component materials 
are frequently thus erroneously classified. Articles composed of silk 
and cotton are often classified as “cotton chief value’’ at 35 per cent., 
when silk is chief value and the duty under the law should be 50 per 
cent, ad valorem. This also occurs with many other manufactures where 
the rate of duty is to be determined by the component material of chief 
value. 

Paragraph 233, T. I., new, provides for “manufactures of wood, or of 
which wood is the chief component part, * # # at 35 per cent.” Some ap¬ 
praising officers construe this literally, and classify for duty under this 
paragraph when “ wood is the chief component part,” although other 
materials, such as silk, velvet, glass, or metal, may be the component ma¬ 
terial of chief value. 

Proprietary preparations, which should be classified under paragraph 
99, T. I., new, at 50 per cent., are often put under paragraph 93, T. I., 
new, at 25 per cent. Antiquities, so called, are often admitted free of 
duty, when they should be classified under paragraph 216, T. I., new, at 
45 per cent. 

“ Artificial mineral waters” are often admitted as “ natural,” free of 
duty. 

“ Istle or Tampico fiber” is admitted free of duty under paragraph 636, 
T. I., new, while I am of the opinion that it is provided for as a “ vege¬ 
table substance,” under paragraph 333, T. I., new, at $15 per ton. If I 
am correct in this opinion, the loss through this source is enormous, as 
there are many thousands of tons imported annually. 

From this it will be seen that the rates of duty have not, within the 
last few years, been levied and collected as the law prescribes. 


664 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


2. Appraisers frequently mistake refined articles for crude, and levy a 
lower specific duty than the law provides. Instances, however, of lail- 
ure to collect specific duty , as provided by the law, are rare in comparison 
with ad valorem. 

3. Sometimes by actual measurements of the goods contained in the 
examination packages; more frequently by measuring and counting the 
folds and estimating the aggregate. 

4. I know of no evidence of such collusion. 

5. I am not aware of any. My experience, however, is too limited to 
render my answer of any value or entitle it to any weight. 

6. I am of the opinion that the law needs amendment in many particu¬ 
lars, especially in its provisions for the assessment of ad valorem rates 
of duty. All articles should, as far as practicable, be enumerated, and 
non-eniimerated articles or manufactures should be divided into as few 
classes as possible. Classification by assimilation to like manufactures 
or articles is difficult, uncertain, and varying. Non enumerated manu¬ 
factures might be classed under a few principal heads, such as cotton, 
silk, flax or jute, wool, wood, iron or metal, &c., not to be determined by 
the “component material of chief value,’ 7 but by its distinctive and 
prominent features. I am not able to state how many suits are pend¬ 
ing now at Boston, New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. I am of 
the opinion that the existing judicial system can be made sufficient to 
try cases arising out of taxation levied for customs or revenue if worked 
efficiently. 

7. It is impossible for me to specify the class of articles. 

8. It has probably been due to ignorance, mistake, arid in some cases 
possibly to dishonesty or corrupt influences. I know of no evidence to 
show guilty knowledge or conspiracy on the part of the higher class of 
Treasury or customs officials. 

9. I am unable to answer. 

10. There is doubt, confusion, and conflict of opinion in the apprais¬ 
ers’ department as to the elements to be ascertained in arriving at 
market value. Especially is this so with respect to coverings (both in¬ 
side and outside), charges, &c. Many appraising officers, as well as 
merchant appraisers, regard bona fide purchases, although below the 
ruling market value in the open market, as dutiable value. Prices in 
the open markets vary according to the magnitude of the transactiou, 
and it is often difficult tor the appraising officer to determine whether 
the price for small, medium, or large lots is the true market value. I am 
unable to state whether the “ time, place, and standard to be applied is 
already defined by the statutes in the opinion of the examiners, assist¬ 
ant appraisers, and appraisers.” In my own opinion they are. 

11. It seems to me impossible to estimate or ascertain the amount of 
undervaluation by the appraiser. An average of the undervaluations 
by importers might be made, it all appraisers have kept arecord of their 
“ additions” to make market value. 

12. I should say the examiner is primarily responsible. Salaries vary 
at different ports and are in my opinion entirely too low to command 
or retain the services of competent men. Business houses pay much 
higher salaries to men who possess the expert knowledge requisite to 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 665 

qualify them for the position of examiner. In the ordinary course of 
business at the large ports the appraiser can do but little else than cer¬ 
tify the values found by his assistants. 

13. I do not know. 

14. If false values have been habitually and systematically reported 
to the several collectors, and if the tariff law has not been faithfully 
executed, it can be fairly said the failure has come of dishonesty or 
corruption, and been accompanied by guilty knowledge on the part oj 
some Treasury or customs officials. I have no knowldege of any money 
having been paid to American officials to get false reports of dutiable 
value. 

15. I know of no reason why the same influences should not be 
brought to bear, or why they should not prove as successful in the fu¬ 
ture as in the past. 

16. I answer in the affirmative to both inquiries embraced in this 
question. 

17. I am unable to say. 

18. I do not think it practicable in the large American consular dis¬ 
tricts for the consular agents, no matter how numerous or alert, to per¬ 
sonally examine articles to be shipped from thence to American ports, 
and to verify the correctness of invoiced values. I do not know of any 
consular district where the “American consular officers could safely 
and surely ascertain and report the true invoiced values of every ship¬ 
ment.” It is not likely that foreign Governments would abstain from 
complaints to this Government if vexatious delays were occasioned in 
examining and certifying invoices. I cannot state what fees are exacted 
in London and in England for the certification of invoices. Invoices 
of merchandise of less value than $100 are not usually certified. 

19. The ascertainment of “ market value”should, I think, be left entire¬ 
ly with the appraiser. The Secretary of the Treasury should, however, 
have the power to direct appraising officers as to what place should be 
taken as the principal market of any country for a given article of mer¬ 
chandise so that all importations of the same goods from the same coun¬ 
try would be assessed for duty at the same market value. I am also of 
the opinion that he should have the power to direct as to what elements 
shall be considered in the ascertainment of dutiable value for merchan¬ 
dise not sold or offered for sale in the open markets. . 

20. I have been so constantly engaged on other official busiuess as to 
render it impossible for me to prepare the statement desired. 

21. It is generally believed that such practices do exist. 1 have no 
knowledge upon the subject. It might be prevented if the penalty for 
not declaring the contents ot the baggage was made sufficient to deter 
travelers from attempting to get dutiable goods through as baggage. 

22. High rates of duty make smuggling, undervaluation, and eva¬ 
sion ot the law profitable, consequently the attempts to smuggle and 


666 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


undervalue is more frequent upon this class of goods than upon those 
where the duty is lower. 

23 and 24. I cannot answer. 

Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 

H. WHEELER COMBS, 

U. 8. General Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , 

Washington , I). C. 


No. 111J. 

GEORGE Y. BROWER—appointed United States general appraiser July 3, 1885. 


Office of United States General Appraiser, 

Corner of Washington and Hubert Streets, 

New York, October 12, 1885. 

Dear Sir : I regret that I am unable to give you any information of 
value in answer to your letter of August 27, 1885, and the inquiries 
there propounded, having been in the customs service for only three 
months last past, and that time has been very busily occupied in the 
learning of reappraisements. 

I find, however, that nearly all of the leading merchants and import¬ 
ers with whom I come in contact daily, favor a specific duty. They 
believe specific rates could be applied to all textile fabrics. Many of the 
merchants, and in other branches of industry than textile material, are 
preparing a draft of rates for the purpose of presenting the same to 
the next session of Congress. They are of the opinion that this system 
would be fairer to the domestic manufacturer and to all importers and 
merchants, as when they are called upon to act on reappraisements 
the;y see the efforts that are made by a large class of importers to con¬ 
stantly undervalue their goods or merchandise. 

In my short experience it is safe to say that scarcely a day passes but 
more or less cases are before me where the evidence of undervaluation 
is almost conclusive. 


I would have replied to your letter sooner; have withheld doing so 
hoping to acquire some knowledge that would be of assistance. What 
I have written is simply to corroborate those who have been in the 
service for a longer time and will answer more specifically. 
Respectfully, yours, 

GEO. Y. BROWER, 

General Appraiser . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


667 


No. 12. 

FREDERICK H. WIGHT—Appointed Chief Clerk New York Custom-House March 
25, 1867; appointed Deputy Collector October 26, 1883. 

Custom-House, New York City. Collector’s Office, 

September 25, 1885. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of the 
9th instant, and requesting official replies to the questions contained 
therein. I beg to preface my reply by stating that in March, 1867, I 
resigned my position in the appointment room of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment and accepted the position of inspector at this port. After two 
and a half years, I entered the warehouse division, and have served as 
clerk, chief clerk, and deputy collector of the same; therefore, after 
carefully reading the several questions, I find that they treat of matters 
that have not come within the scope of my duties, and what I could 
say would be in the nature of hearsay evidence only. 

Any and all information connected with the warehousing of mer¬ 
chandise and the exportation or transportation thereof in bond and 
under the I. T. law, I can furnish at a moment’s notice. Therefore, I 
simply touch upon Questions 4, 7, and 21. 

No. 4.—I do not believe that there has been for years past any col¬ 
lusion between importers and deputy collectors to influence the ordering 
of any particular packages for examination. My predecessor, Robert 
Des Anges, tried that business, and it placed him in the Albany peni¬ 
tentiary for two years. 

No. 7.— In connection with this question, I desire to refer to the 
‘ 1 damage allowance ’ ’ business. Until the present Secretary took charge 
of the Treasury Department and appointed a commission, Messrs. 
Tingle, Spaulding, and Tichenor, (special agents,) I had been unable to 
get an official investigation of what is known as “warehouse damages.” 

My attention was first attracted by the sudden 41 blowing out ’ ’ of 
several damage brokers , and their display of fine wearing-apparel, dia¬ 
monds, &c.; and as I had known them as “hangers-on” around the 
custom-house for years, I felt sure that something was wrong, and that 
the sudden wealth of these men must be a corresponding loss to the 
Government. The commission heard my statement; I furnished them 
papers, entries, and invoices, and they proceeded to investigate; and 
I am informed that it resulted in the collection of several thousand 
dollars that had been allowed for “damage” in the report of the ex¬ 
aminers. 

The remedy, as applied by the honorable Secretary, was so effective 
that both damage brokers and the former damage examiners have dis¬ 
appeared. As a further result, there are not five damage applications 
now where there used to be twenty-five. 

No. 21.—Money to customs inspectors examining baggage. There 
is not the slightest doubt but that such practice exists; the great trouble 
is to fairly detect it. The passenger is equally guilty; for if the officer 
made the first advance the passenger can easily make it known to the 
deputy surveyor or his representative and obtain redress. It is very 
difficult to obtain positive proof of guilt in such cases, hence the diffi¬ 
culty of suggesting a remedy. I have no doubt, however, that the 
practice is of c less extent than might be supposed from common rumor. 


668 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Appreciating the compliment of a reference of the circular to me, I 
am, very respectfully, 

F. H. WIGHT, 

Deputy Collector , and ex-officio Storekeeper of the Port. 
Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 13. 


J. E. JONES—Appointed Deputy Collector July 22 , 1885. 


Custom-House, New York, 
Collector's Office , October 5, 1885. 

I have the honor to state in reply to your communication propound¬ 
ing a series of questions in regaid to the collection of the revenues at 
this port, that 1 am and have been for some time past devoting all my 
spare time examining the questions referred to, and will in a few days 
forward the most intelligent report that my brief acquaintance with 
custom-house duties will permit. 

Your obedient, 

J. E. JONES, 
Deputy Collector. 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 14. 

B. F. WYMAN—Appointed Deputy Collector July 20, 1878. 

Custom-House, New York City, 
Collector's Office , October 5, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge tbe receipt of your communi¬ 
cation of 9th ultimo, in which you request me to answer at the earliest 
practicable day certain questions contained therein, relative to the ad¬ 
ministration of customs laws,.with a view to your forthcoming annual 
report to Congress. 

In reply I desire respectfully to state that a majority of the questions 
embraced in your circular do not come within the scope of either the 
business or duties of the division of which I have charge in this office, 
and L am consequently not in a position to express an opinion in detail 
from my practical knowledge of the various matters covered by your 
interrogations. 

As to inquiries 1 and 2, none to my knowledge. 

3. By the examination of the goods and report of the appraiser. 

4. So far as my knowledge or observation goes I answer emphatically, 
none. Collusion of the kind mentioned would be nearly, if not quite, 
impossible under the present system of distributing entries, which was 
intended and adopted to prevent anything of that kind. 

5 to 15 inclusive. I have no meaus of knowing, and consequently am 
not in a position to answer. 

16. In my opinion such a change would be practicable, and with few 
exceptions, perhaps, applicable to the various classes of imports. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 669 


18. In the manufacturing towns it might be possible for the consul 
to ascertain the wholesale prices of goods by visiting the various fac¬ 
tories for that purpose; but such an arrangement would probably cause 
some delay in the certification of invoices, and consequently, perhaps, 
lead to some complaints to this Government. The consular fees charged 
in England are 10.$. 6^. sterling, in addition to which there is a com¬ 
missioner’s fee of 4 s. Gd. 

19 to 24 inclusive. My duties do not cover these matters, and I have 
no information concerning them on which to base an answer. 

Very respectfully, 

B. E. WYMAN, 
Deputy Collector , Sixth Division . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 115. 

CHARLES DAVIS—Appointed Cleaner, Chicago, January 1, 1883; Deputy Collector, 
New York, September 5, 1885. 

Custom-House, New York City, 
Collector's Office , September 30, 1885. 

My Dear Sir : I am in receipt of your communication of 9th instant, 
making inquiries relative to the business of this department. 

I became connected with the custom-house September 6, and was as¬ 
signed to the fourth division, as deputy in charge. 

It is officially designated as the navigation department , and all business 
pertaining to the “entrance and clearance of vessels,” “enrolling, 
registering, and licensing of vessels,” “granting protection to seamen,” 
“recording bills of sale and mortgages of vessels,” &c., is transacted in 
my division. 

Your inquiries do not seem to apply to the special duties appertain¬ 
ing to the fourth division, and, owing to the brief official experience I 
have had, my impression is that I could not give you any information 
that would be of service to you. 

Very respectfully, 

CHARLES DAVIS. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 116. 

WM A. JONES—Appointed Clerk, New York, May 21, 1869; Deputy Naval Officer 
April 15, 1875; Deputy Collector March 3, 1879. 

Custom-House, New York, 

United States Public Stores, 

402 Washington Street , October 5, 1885. 

Sir: Before proceeding to answer the twenty-four questions pro¬ 
pounded in your communication of the 9th ultimo, it is proper for me 
to state that, having been many years in my present position, where I 
have had nothing to do directly with either the entry or appraisement 




670 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


of goods, but simply have charge of the receipt of all merchandise, its 
care and custody while in the public stores, and its delivery to the mer¬ 
chant or transfer to warehouse, after the appraiser has examined, ap¬ 
praised, and made return of the same upon the invoice or appraisement 
order, as the same may be—this, together with the supervision of the 
force employed, including clerks, laborers, watchmen, &c., and the care 
and custody of all Government property in said buildings, the receipt 
and delivery of all non-dutiable samples, and the stamping with customs 
and internal-revenue stamps all cigars, cigarettes, snuff, tobacco, &c., 
constitute the principal duties of the deputy collector in charge of the 
United States public stores at this port, and leave him little opportunity 
to study in detail the intricacies of the appraisement and classification 
of merchandise, or all the technical points and ridings relating to the 
entry of the same. 

I would further state that, as I have been able to obtain but little 
“official” information as to the “results and effects” of the recent in¬ 
vestigations into customs affairs, I am probably not so well able to 
enlighten you concerning that matter as some others who are, doubtless, 
familiar with the whole subject. 

I will now take up the questions consecutively, and answer those that 
I can. 

1. I know of no evidence tending to show that the rates of duty have 
not been honestly levied. But that these levies have often been erro¬ 
neous is evinced by the many rulings of the Treasury Depart ment chang¬ 
ing those rates, notably the recent ruling upon broken rice. 

2. Some years ago abundant evidence was furnished the Department 
to prove that certain sugar importers were not paying full duty upon 
goods of this character, by reason of fraudulent weights, and, I think, 
in some instances, as was shown, by getting their goods entered at a 
lower classification than they should have borne. I have no evidence 
that such is the case at the present time; but, inasmuch as the article in 
question pays a far greater amount of revenue than any other imported 
into the country, the field is an immense one, and should be carefully 
guarded, and the only way to do this is to employ only men of fearless 
honesty and tried integrity, both in the weigher’s and appraiser’s de¬ 
partments. 

3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are at present veri¬ 
fied only as to width. With present facilities, it would be impossible to 
do more. 

4. I know of no proof at this time of such collusion. With the present 
system it would be not only a very difficult but a very hazardous un¬ 
dertaking, and must include the importer, the deputy, who orders the 
goods, and the examiner, who passes them, and who is liable at any time 
to oi;der in other cases from the same invoice. From my knowledge of 
the deputies who order the goods for examination at this port, and a 
careful scrutiny of many of the invoices passing through the appraiser’s 
hands during the past five years, I feel pretty confident that this par¬ 
ticular kind of rascality ceased some years ago, when Colonel Des Anges, 
then a deputy collector, was arrested, tried, and convicted for this 
offence. 

5. If there be evidence of this kind, I know it not, nor have I the 
means of obtaining the same. 

6. I am not sufficiently familiar with the points involved in this 
question to give an intelligent reply. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 671 

7. Recent investigations have shown, if I am correctly informed, that 
there has been a failure to collect the full amount of duty upon the fol¬ 
lowing articles: Certain lines of silks, laces, cotton embroideries, deco¬ 
rated china, and glassware. Whether the evidence of failure can be 
4 4 controverted successfully ’’ I am unable to state. 

8. In my judgment, from a lack of knowledge, in some instances at 
least, if there be any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge of 
this failure on the part of the higher Treasury or customs officials, the 
same is not in my possession. 

9. As I have no definite knowledge on this subject, I am unable to 
answer. 

10. Confusion, doubt, and conflict of opinion have, to my knowledge, 
frequently existed in the appraiser’s department respecting the elements 
to be ascertained in order to fix dutiable value, and this condition of 
things, in my judgment, arises not only from the many contradictory 
decisions that have from time to time been rendered by the Treasury 
Department, but from the apparent contradictions and ambiguity to be 
found in the present tariff laws. 

11. In my judgment, no. 

12. The examiner, whose salary may be anywhere from $1,600 to 
$2,500, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. The ap¬ 
praiser is generally little “else ordinarily” than “one who officially 
certifies the value fixed and reported to him by the examiner, and has 
a general supervision of the appraiser’s department.” 

I consider, however, that the present incumbent at this port is much 
more than that, and, by reason of his long experience and mature judg¬ 
ment, is better equipped for the place than any man who has filled it for 
many years. But, notwithstanding this fact, it is of the greatest im¬ 
portance that the examiners in the several divisions should be men of 
inflexible honesty, and thoroughly familiar with the character, quality, 
and value of the merchandise upon which they are called upon to act. 
Men of this stamp we now have in the service, but they are greatly un¬ 
derpaid ; and in view of the fact that there is so little security of ten¬ 
ure, I wonder we have so many. 

While in conversation with one of the leading and most honorable 
dry-goods importers of this city a short time since, the name of a cer¬ 
tain examiner came up, and he stated that the Government would not 
be likely to retain his services much longer unless some provisions were 
made for an increase of salary. “Why,” said he, “that man’s expert 
knowledge, together with his high character, would, if jeonnected with 
a first-class mercantile house, command a salary of, say, anywhere from 
$5,000 to $10,000, while the Government is paying him but $2,500;” 
which statement is undoubtedly true. But a few days ago an examiner 
resigned from the third division, appraiser’s department, where he was 
receiving $2,500 per annum, to take a position in a mercantile house 
at a salary of $5,000. 

No Government where the tenure of office in the civil service is not 
more secure than ours can expect to get first-class service for third-rate 
pay. 

13. If there be satisfactory evidence of this character, I have no 
knowledge of the same. 

14. Am not prepared to say that failure has come from dishonesty, 
although instances of that kind may have existed. If money has been 
paid to American officials for the purpose suggested, I have no knowl- 


672 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


edge of tlie fact. In my opinion, the failure has arisen in a great 
measure from ignorance and lack of experience on the part of exam¬ 
iners at the various ports throughout the country; for it is a well- 
known fact, although I cannot at this moment cite a case, that mer¬ 
chants of this port have frequently found it to their advantage to have 
certain kinds of merchandise entered at some other port—say Boston, 
Philadelphia, or Baltimore—as they were thus able to enter the same 
at a less rate of duty or lower valuation than at this port. My remedy 
for this would be the establishment by act of Congress of a board of 
experts or United States general examiners—men only of acknowledged 
ability and high character, whose duties should consist in a general 
supervision of the appraisement of merchandise throughout the entire 
United States, with a view to establish uniform rates and uniform values 
for merchandise of like character throughout the whole country. I 
believe such a board, properly equipped and sustained by the Govern¬ 
ment, and co-operating with the consular service abroad, would result 
in the saving of millions of revenue to the Government and save a vast 
amount of vexatious and expensive litigation. The functions of such 
a board are now partially covered by the general appraiser’s office and 
the special agents’ bureau, but they do not fill the bill. 

15. Covered by answer to the preceding question. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates might be a benefit to 
the revenue and lessen a tendency to bribery. But, in my judgment, 
it is absolutely impossible to so adjust such rates as to equally distribute 
the burden of taxation upon all classes of taxpayers. 

17. Have no knowledge upon which to base an intelligent reply. 

18. In my judgment, it would be utterly impossible for American 
consular agents to examine all articles shipped from the leading Eu¬ 
ropean ports to this country and verify the correctness of invoiced 
values. I have no means of knowing the exact amount of fees exacted 
by our consuls for certifying invoices, but have often heard bitter com¬ 
plaints by persons from whom these fees were exacted upon articles of 
trifling value. 

19. In my judgment, it would not only be safe to the revenue but in¬ 
sure justice to the importer could matters of this character be referred 
either to the executive or judicial power, though it would doubtless add 
very greatly to the duties already devolving upon those branches of 
the Government. 

20. Being a subject with which I am not at all familiar, will not 
attempt a reply. 

21. Though I have no personal knowledge on this subject, I have 
good reason to believe that the practice prevails to a greater or less 
extent at the leading ports. But whether it can be prevented, and how, 
is a problem that I am unable to solve. 

Some few years ago a reverend gentleman, president of one of the 
leading colleges of the country, arrived from a summer trip in Europe, 
and while chatting in my office and waiting for the permit for some 
articles which he had brought over and which were dutiable, I asked 
if he had had any trouble about the examination of his baggage on the 
dock. “Oh, no,” said he, “I never have any trouble in that regard; 
I usually give the inspector five or ten dollars, and always get along 
nicely.” I suggested that, inasmuch as it was a violation of the law, 
and that inspectors were likely to pass dutiable articles free for persons 
who treated them so generously, that it was hardly the right thing to 
do. “ But, ’’ said he, 1 1 we don’t do it for that purpose at all, but simply 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 673 


as a recognition of the officer’s courtesy in facilitating the examina¬ 
tion,” &e., and that “ the custom was prevalent throughout the world.” 
Now, while nearly every member of society, from the clergyman down, 
is ready upon his return from abroad to fee the inspectors who pass 
their baggage, how are you going to stop it? I know of but one way, 
and that is to return to the barge-office system, and have all baggage 
sent into a separate room for examination by men who neither see nor 
come in contact with the passengers.' 

22. Have not sufficient definite information upon this point to answer 
intelligently. 

23. ' Doubtless it has. 

24. Am unable to answer this question, but presume it can be satis¬ 
factorily answered by the officer in charge of the law division of the 
custom-house or the United States district attorney. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

I remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. A. JONES, 

Deputy Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 117. 

N. G. WILLIAMS—Appointed Deputy Collector July 1, 1872; Entry-clerk July 20, 
1877 ; Deputy Collector July 22, 1878, and August 6, 1881. 

Custom-House, New York City, 

Collector’s Office, October 8, 1885. 

SiR: Referring to your circular letter of the 19th ultimo, marked 
confidential, propounding twenty-four questions relating to custom¬ 
house affairs, I have the honor to reply in answer to Questions 1 and 2 
I have no evidence pro or con. 

Question 3.—The tests and measurements belong peculiarly to the 
appraiser only. However, I know that in the case of woollen goods 
the verification is made by counting the number of pieces, and then 
weighing one piece. The weight governs the quantity; when there is 
any doubt actual measurement is made. Upon the appraiser’s report 
to the ('©Hector the liquidating clerks verify the accuracy of the invoiced 
quantity with such report, and liquidate accordingly. 

Question 4. —Working under the present system of numbering entries 
and distributing to the entry clerks pro rata, collusion with the impor¬ 
ter is practically impossible. 1 know of no evidence in recent years 
implicating deputy collectors in such practices. 

Question 5. —During the administration of Collector Merritt, the u civil- 
service” board of examiners, of which I was then chairman, were or¬ 
dered to investigate the whole force of assistant weighers, and report 
upon their competency. In the performance of that duty we visited 
every pier in this collection district, and witnessed the actual work of 
each weigher, critically examined each dock-book, and closely exam¬ 
ined each officer as to his duties. We reported the force to be generally 
efficient, but we found a few officers who did not or could not figure up 
their own books. In one case, where the importer had demanded actual 
tare, we found the weigher absent in a liquor saloon one-quarter mile 
away, and the importer’s agent in possession of the dock-book, making 

43 A 



674 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


weight and tares for himself, I immediately reported the facts to the 
collector; the officer was at once suspended, and dismissed the follow¬ 
ing day. 

While making this investigation, I discovered some practices which, 
in my individual judgment, seemed to be radically wrong, viz : Permis¬ 
sion is granted to unlade sugar from the importing vessel into lighters, 
and transported thence to and discharged into the private shed of the 
sugar-refining company. An assistant weigher is, or was at that time, 
detailed permanently to duty at such refinery. My argument with the 
collecto'r was that, considering the frailty of humanity and the sharp 
competition in the sugar trade, it was wrong to expose an officer whose 
pay amounts to but $3 or $4 per day to the great temptation incident to 
such a responsible place. 

As it seems to be impracticable to weigh the sugar at the vessel 7 s wharf, 
I can only suggest that the weighers be alternated for every cargo. 
The employment of temporary assistant weighers is demoralizing to 
the force, for the reason that he is apt to slight his work, or, in other 
words, average weights, in order to make a record as a fast workman, 
and thus pave the way for more permanent employment. The effect 
on the regular weigher is that, in order to preserve his reputation with 
his foreman, he is tempted to average also. 

Permission to weigh on lighters, in my judgment, should not be 
granted, as the motion of the lighter, especially if the water is rough, 
precludes the possibility of accurate adjustment of the scales; and, more 
than that, I am informed thirty tons more a day can be weighed on the 
dock than on a lighter. Weighing heavy goods, such as sugar, steel 
blooms, &c., on platform scales should not be allowed; they are too apt 
to get out of order, and that, too, without detection ; whereas with the 
beam, the fulcrum and resistance being continually before the eye, any 
trouble is instantly detected. I am informed that warehousemen have 
great influence in the weigher’s department, and that if a weigher does 
not suit them they can get them transferred. Ao complaint or charge 
against a weigher should be entertained unless made in writing and the 
weigher heard. 

Questions 6 to 11, inclusive .—I am unable to make satisfactory answer. 

Question 12.—The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible; 
salary is $ per annum. The assistant appraiser is secondarily re¬ 
sponsible. The appraiser ordinarily is simply the certifying officer 
to the collector of values fixed by the examiner and assistant appraiser. 
But I may add, as cognate to the above answer, that the present ap¬ 
praiser is something more than a mere certifying officer, for, from his 
long experience and practical knowledge of merchandise, he is compe ¬ 
tent to criticise and supervise understanding^ the work of the exam¬ 
iners. 

Questions 13 and 14.—Cannot answer. 

Question 15.—If it is true, and I believe it is, that false valuations 
have in the past been induced by bribery and venality, and also that 
such influences will be just as potent in*the future as in the past, or 
until the civil service is completely divorced from political influences, 
and officers have a reasonable assurance of permanancy in their positions 
during good behavior. 

Question 16.—I believe the change from ad valorem to specific rates 
would essentially diminish the tendency to bribery, and that specific 
rates could be applied to all, or nearly all, textile fabrics. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


675 


Question 17.—I believe that undervaluations of invoices have greatly 
increased since the repeal of the ‘ 1 moiety law.” Although the law was 
denounced and made to appear as very unpopular, it is nevertheless 
true that it was beneficial to the best interests of the Government, and 
it afforded the honest importer appreciable protection against the dis¬ 
honest practices of swindling importers. The sentiment against the law 
was stirred up and formulated by men inimical to the interests of the 
business men of the country. The practical effect of the repeal of the 
law has been to drive honest American importing houses out of trade, 
so that to-day the vast bulk of the importing business is in the hands 
of foreign agents, who have no respect for our revenue laws and are mer¬ 
cenary to the last degree. I believe it is this class of men who are most 
guilty of corrupting officers in the revenue service. Congress should 
restore the law to the statute-book. 

Question 18,—I do not think it is practicable or possible for consular 
agents in London, Paris, Berlin, &c., to personally examine all articles 
shipped from thence to American ports, but I should think they could 
become familiar with the market values of the most important articles 
of manufacture which are exported to this country, and by inviting 
the manufacturers to furnish their consular officers with a catalogue of 
their productions, with a manufacturer’s price-list, they might thus gain 
a fair knowledge of market values of the bulk of the goods exported to 
this country. As this question relates to the certification of invoices, 
it may be considered as within the scope of a full answer to state that 
my present duty at this office is the consideration of applications to 
enter by pro forma invoice. Referring to section 2859, Revised Stat¬ 
utes,, it is found that in almost every case where regular importers apply 
for permission to enter by pro forma invoice they have violated the 
essential conditions of the privilege conveyed in said section. It has 
developed that universally they have written to their consignors not to 
get invoices certified for amounts under $100. Also, that some import¬ 
ers habitually enter by proforma invoice for large amounts, claiming 
and making oath that the non-receipt of their certified invoice is the 
delay at the Paris consular office. I have been unable as yet to verify 
the truth of this assertion, and am now notifying these importers that 
they must conform to the requirements of the statute law. I have a 
growing suspicion that some of these importers have made entries in the 
past by pro forma invoice for the purpose of experimenting with our ap¬ 
praisers. I shall endeavor to defeat such practices in the future. The 
fee exacted by our consuls in London and England for certifying in¬ 
voices is $2.50 for each invoice, without regard to value; the commis¬ 
sioner also exacts a fee of 2s. (hi. for each invoice. . 

Questions 19 and 20.—Have not sufficient data to answer. 

Question 21.—It is the common belief that the practice generally pre¬ 
vails of the payment of money by arriving passengers to inspectors of 
baggage, first, as gratuity for hastening the examination of their lug¬ 
gage, and second, as bribes to pass baggage containing dutiable articles 
without the payment of duty. It is my opinion that the practice can 
be prevented by making one general landing-place the order of the day. 
Then a good executive officer could soon invent and inaugurate a system 
whereby the examination of all luggage would be under constant and 
practical surveillance. This plan would be quite or almost as effective 
as if the luggage were sent to the “public store” for examination, and 
much less expensive. The steamship companies should land passengers 


G76 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and luggage at the u Government pier, 7 ’ at their own expense. This 
they now do at Liverpool, England. In answer to this question relating 
to baggage, I prepared a much longer reply, but, upon reading it over, 
concluded to cut it out. It was a condensed narrative of my experience 
and observations while in charge at the u barge office,” and which led 
me to positive conclusions as to the venality which was, and had been, 
running rampant through this branch of the service. As jin experi¬ 
ment, if, on the arrival of one of the large ‘ ‘ Cunard ’ ’ steamers with, 
say, five hundred passengers, the honorable Secretary should, after the 
passengers’ declarations had been made and handed in, order, without 
any previous warning, a critical or exhaustive examination of every 
piece of baggage, the result would probably be a startling disclosure of 
the inefficiency, or worse, of the practice or system now in vogue. Of 
course the whole proceeding should be carried out under the supervision 
of a competent executive officer, and, as in carrying out a plan of 
battle, every move should be inviolably secret. 

Question 22.—I think it does, and I am also of the opinion that what¬ 
ever may be the rates of duty, so long as competition is so aggressively 
sharp, and goods are sold on such close margins of profit, smuggling will 
continue and dishonest shippers will try to evade the revenue laws. 
The chief danger from the operations of smugglers and dishonest ship¬ 
pers is in the importation of staples and all bulky goods which are sold 
on small profits, and not, as many suppose, on the lighter or fancy articles 
of commerce; the proportion is as thousands to hundreds. 

Questions 23, 24.—I have no data to draw upon. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Your obedient servant, 

N. G. WILLIAMS, 

Deputy Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 118. 

CAMDEN O. ROCKWELL—Appointed Deputy Collector May 12, 1883. 

Custom-House, New York, Collector’s Office, 

September 14, 1885. 

Sir : My line of duties while in the custom’s service have been lim¬ 
ited to, first, administering oaths on entries ; second, ordering pack¬ 
ages to public store for examination; third, signing miscellaneous pa¬ 
pers. My absolute practical knowledge cannot, therefore, cover many 
of the questions asked in your confidential circular of the 9th instant. 

Question 4.—Ans. The method of distributing entries at the port to 
entry clerks and deputies makes it quite impossible to systematically 
enter into collusion with the person making the entry to send a “ false 
or bogus” package to public store for examination. 

Question 9.—Ans. Not strictly pertinent, but bearing on the ques¬ 
tion of dutiable values, I take the liberty of expressing myself on the 
immediate transportation business. I think it is apparent to the most 
superficial observer that there is great opportunity for undervalua¬ 
tion, even without the connivance of the appraiser, but because of his 
ignorance. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 677 


The larger ports of entry necessarily have assistant appraisers and 
examiners, who are experts in certain particular lines of merchandise. 
Inland ports of entry are liable to receive a great variety of merchan¬ 
dise, and the appraisers and examiners, to be able to fix dutiable values, 
must possess the knowledge and sagacity which in larger or original 
ports of entry it is found necessary to delegate to men well skilled in 
some one or two particular lines of goods. Immediate transportation 
without appraisement is no doubt a convenience to the inland mer¬ 
chant, but the discrimination which it makes against the merchant at 
the port of entry, and the liability to undervaluation of goods, should 
condemn that part of the system relating to appraisement. The ap¬ 
praisement should be made, in my opinion, at the original port of 
entry 5 the goods may then be transported in bond and duties paid at 
the terminal port. 

Question 16.—Ans. All duties should be specific as far as possible; 
whether applicable to texile fabrics I cannot say. 

Question 21.—Ans, To this question I cannot answer with positive 
knowledge. In a general way, from hints gathered here and there, I 
believe the practice of receiving money by customs inspectors has been 
too common. Conviction and punishment of an officer or two to the 
full extent of the law would no doubt lessen the evil. This should in 
some way be done, without involving the passenger, who certainly is 
not generally willingly or wilfully guilty. The fee system which pre¬ 
vails so largely in Europe, and the custom which prevails in some 
countries of officers collecting the customs duties immediately upon 
examination, are mitigating circumstances in favor of the passenger. 

I have the honor to remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CAMDEN O. ROCKWELL. 

Deputy Collector of Customs , Port of New York. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 119. 

WILLIAM BARRE—Appointed Deputy Collector July I, 1885. 

Custom-House, New York City, Collector’s Office, 

September 10, 1885. 

Sir : Your confidential circular of 9th instant duly received. My 
recent appointment to the customs service (August 1, 1885) renders 
it cpiite impossible to furnish the Department at this time with in¬ 
formation of any practical value. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. BARRE, 

Deputy Collector , 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



678 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

No. 120. 

N. B. BARTRAM—Appointed Weigher July 8, 1879, and August 8, 1881. 

Custom-House, New York City, Collector’s Office, 

September 28, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your com¬ 
munication of September 9, and to reply as follows: I may begin by 
saying that my position is that of deputy collector in charge of the fifth 
division. The fifth division is divided into two bureaus, viz., the bureau 
of the entry of merchandise for warehouse and consumption, and the 
bureau of liquidations. The former is composed of the entry clerks 
and their assistants, (stampers, messengers, &c.,) who make the pre¬ 
liminary estimate of duties on which goods are delivered to the im¬ 
porter, except cases ordered for examination, (a penal bond being 
taken on all entries for consumption for the production of any or all 
of the goods so delivered in case they should be required by the col¬ 
lector.) Second, the bureau of liquidations, where the invoices, hav¬ 
ing been returned by the appraiser, are got together with the entries, 
weigher’s and gauger’s returns, &c., and are adjusted, and additional 
or refund duty ascertained. 

There are other duties imposed upon me, notably the granting of all 
“ free permits, ” which a reference to the assignment card issued by 
the collector will show. 

Question 1.—To my knowledge, I say none. All entries are liqui¬ 
dated upon the appraiser’s and weigher’s or gauger’s returns, and 
when inspecting these, if the liquidators note any deviation from the 
laws or regulations, the returns are sent back for correction and ad¬ 
justment. These liquidations are all submitted to the naval officer, 
where they are carefully scrutinized and not passed until, in their 
opinion, they are correct. Granted, then, the honesty and ability of 
the appraiser, there can be no doubt that the legal duty is collected. 

Question 2.—I say no. In my opinion the weigher’s and gauger’s 
departments were never in better condition than now. I had charge 
as weigher, five years since, of a large and important district for about 
six months, and the only possible chance that I could see for any crooked 
work was in the case of “tares.” On all heavy goods, as sugar, &c., 
“actual tare” is ascertained, and it is only on such goods (as-it can¬ 
not be ascertained on the wharf without damaging the goods) as bristles, 
fancy soaps, &e., that it is furnished by a clerk called the “tare clerk,” 
who visits the importer’s store and there weighs and tares the goods, 
or, quite as frequently, takes a memorandum of the tare from the im¬ 
porter and furnishes it to the weigher. I gave considerable attention 
to this subject, but could see no remedy for it except in employing a 
different grade of clerk. The man that was furnished to me for this 
duty received $2.50 per day. 

. Question 8. —The appraiser reports on the invoice the weight or meas¬ 
urement of all textile fabrics, and these are accepted by theliquidators, 
unless some error is discovered or question raised by the liquidator, 
when the report is referred back. 

Question 4.—I answer, absolutely none. I order no cases for exam¬ 
ination myself, being too busily engaged otherwise; but the entries are 
all furnished to the deputies, who are seated immediately in my rear. 
All entries are received by one clerk—receiving clerk—who notes the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 679 


number of the entry on a sheet numbered for the purpose each day. 
He then notes in pencil on the entry the number of the entry and the 
initial of the entry clerk to whom it comes, and it then goes to the 
stamper, who stamps the number on the bill of lading, the entry, the 
invoice, and the permit; thus all the vital parts of the entry bear the 
same number clearly and legibly stamped thereon. After being 
stamped, the entries are distributed to the entry clerks in series of two, 
as called for by the numbers. From the entry clerk, after being passed 
by him, the entry is put into a leather bag and transmitted to the naval 
office. After being passed there, it is returned in the same manner to 
the collector’s office, (its departure for the naval office and its return 
to the collector’s office being noted on a numbered sheet.) The entries 
are then distributed by a messenger pro rata among the deputies, who 
order the cases. Thus it will be seen that no entry clerk knows whose 
entry he is to pass, and no deputy knows whose entry he will order 
the cases upon. To successfully order a dummy case would require a 
combination of at least a dozen men. The receiving clerk, the entry 
clerks, and the stampers and messengers are all under my immediate 
eye from a seat upon a raised platform. 

Question 5.—I have answered this question in my remarks to Ques¬ 
tion 2. 

Question 6.—This should be treated by the deputy of the seventh, or 
law division. 

Question 7.—On the subject of No. 7,1 desire to say that, in my opin¬ 
ion, with trilling exceptions, the Department has not failed to collect 
the entire and full amount of duty that the law prescribes, but that 
in my belief the importers have been oppressed and treated with out¬ 
rageous unfairness by the special agents. Until about January 1, 1885, 
I was charged with the appointment of merchant appraisers. About 
that time the collector took the. appointment of them into his own 
hands. Mr. Tingle, the special agent who had charge of the investi¬ 
gation into the undervaluation of silks, chose to assume that there was 
something wrong in the appointment of merchant appraisers, and I 
suspect that the collector acted at his instigation and that of Mr. Tre- 
loar, his chief clerk. The collector (Judge Kobertson) wa§, however, 
very particular to assure me that he had the most unbounded confi¬ 
dence in me, and that he took the matter into his own hands solely 
because there was to be an investigation, and he desired the utmost 
care upon the part of the collector’s office. Mr. Tingle, however, in 
a very fresh letter to the Secretary (copy enclosed) took occasion to re¬ 
flect upon me, and I answered him. (See my letter to the collector, 
forwarded to the Department February 5, 1885, (copy enclosed,) and I 
presume now in the files of the special agents’ office.) I heard no more 
from Mr. Tingle. 

The collector began appointing the merchant appraisers for Mr. 
Tingle, and continued to do so through his raid on the silk men, and 
he was beaten continually for two months, during which time he made 
one seizure, which was afterward released. When the merchant ap¬ 
praiser and general appraiser disagree, the case goes to the collector 
for a final decision. After the active participation of the special agents 
in the appraisements, I remember of but one instance in which the then 
collector decided in favor of the merchant appraiser. His stereotyped 
report was, 1 ' I concur with the general appraiser. ’ ’ An idea seems 
to prevail among some officials at this port that in addition to collecting 


680 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. 


the just duties they must help protect something-. Hie examiner who 
raises the invoice reports five names to the appraiser to send to the col¬ 
lector, from which a merchant appraiser is to be selected. It is an un¬ 
derstood rule that the first man on the list is the man preferred by the 
appraiser; so that it is plain that unless you have a competent and up¬ 
right collector, who has the knowledge and sense of common fairness 
to select a merchant appraiser who is “free from bias,” the importer 
has not the least chance. 

The competition, for instance, is so keen between manufacturers and 
importers and between consignees and buyers that it is almost impos¬ 
sible for one to deal fairly with the other. Besides, all values in Europe 
during the past two years have been upset by the depressed state of 
business there. A special agent came six months ago to investigate 
the china and glass ware importers. I know him very well, and believe 
him to be a good officer. 1 took occasion to say to him that if he found 
anything wrong with a certain large firm I should lose my faith in hu¬ 
manity, as I had known all three of the gentlemen for years, and I 
believed them to be strictly honest. He made two cases against them, 
in one of which the examiner raised one invoice (lit per cent, and the 
other 50 per cent. A merchant appraiser was demanded, and the mer¬ 
chant appraiser advanced the first invoice 4^ per cent., and the gen¬ 
eral appraiser per cent. In the second ease the merchant appraiser 
sustained the invoice, and the general appraiser advanced it 50 per 
cent. Both cases, consequently, went to the collector for decision, and 
he, after a patient and careful investigation, sustained the merchant 
appraiser in both cases. Thus, after a delay of six months, the importer 
gets his goods, after having locked up in general order store 1,200 cases 
during that time, which he dare not enter without a decision, having 
been unable to keep contracts and suffered heavy losses meanwhile. 
This treatment will break any but the strongest house. In these cases 
the examiner is absolutely under the control of the special agent, and 
thinks if he fails to obey him and raise an invoice at his dictation he 
will surely lose his place, so that the only hope a merchant has is in a 
courageous collector. Now for the result: The importer had a right, 
it seems townie, to expect that the result of these two test cases, from 
which there was no appeal, would mean something, but the appraiser 
informed him that he should again advance his invoices unless he con¬ 
sented to add 15 per cent. To go through this system of appeal again 
was simply ruin; he consequently raised his invoices. Please bear in 
mind that these invoices, from the first advance by the appraiser, then 
the appeal to a merchant appraiser, then the decision of the collector, 
and afterward the adjustment by the liquidation, are all under my eye, 
and receive my personal attention at every stage. 

Question 8.—It has not come about, in my opinion. 

Question 9.—My remarks on No. 7 may be applied in answer to this 
query. 

Question 10.—Let the examiners and appraisers answer. 

Question 11.—The invoices on file in the New York custom-house will 
show the advances made by the appraiser, but these advances are no 
test of undervaluation. A merchant will frequently stand an advance 
of less than 10 per cent, to get possession of his goods. Delay and de¬ 
tention is death to him, and if he can see any possible way in which 
he can avoid loss by standing the advance he will do so. In other 
words, the small advance of an invoice is but a sweating device of the 
examiner and special agent. * 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 681 

Question 12.—The assistant appraiser is the man who should be held 
responsible. He is supposed to examine every invoice and to certify 
it to the appraiser. He signs the return on the invoice, while the ap¬ 
praiser’s name is merely stamped upon the invoice in a perfunctory 
way. 

Question 13.—No knowledge on this point. 

Question 14.—This query is answered in my foregoing remarks. I 
have no knowledge of the use of money. 

Question 15.—See answer to No. 14. 

Question 16.—Undoubtedly it would. I believe specific rates can be 
applied generally to the tariff. 

Question 17.—No. This law was properly repealed; it produced the 
infamous “Jayne.” 

Question 18.— 

Question 19.—Undoubtedly greater jurisdiction should be given to 
the executive or judicial power. Any merchant who has an invoice 
raised should have the privilege of demanding that his goods be seized 
by the collector, (claims for damages being waived.) This would bring 
the case into court and a trial speedily be had. 

Question 20.—The rates on wool are now entirely specific, as pro¬ 
vided for by the tariff of 1883, and not a combination of specifics and 
ad valorems. The whole trouble with the tariff is that it places the 
dividing-line between 2\ and 5 cents at 12 cents per pound. Now, 
this is just about the price of Scotch Highland wool, and by allowing 
a 22 per cent, discount and 1 per cent, brokerage the price is reduced 
below 12 cents, and a saving of 100 per cent, in duties accomplished. 
The same is also true in regard to Donskoi wool, where by an addition 
of charges, the same result is accomplished. In my opinion, if the 
dividing-line was fixed at 10 cents instead of 12 cents, all the trouble 
would cease. 

Question 21.—There is no doubt but that arriving passengers “tip” 
the officers on the dock, much as yofi would a waiter at a hotel. This 
is the general feeling in the case. This is now, however, at a mini¬ 
mum, and I do not believe it can ever be thoroughly stopped. 

Question 22.—I think not. 

Question 23.—I have no knowledge of any other port. 

Question 24.—I believe that the false reports have been made under 
instructions from the special agents; that the special agents have 
been working in their own interest to get up an excitement, and to 
show that they (the special agents) are indispensable. Their very 
failure to procure the arrest or indictment of anybody is proof posi¬ 
tive, to my mind, that they are frauds. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

N. B. BARTRAM, 

Deputy Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


682 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 121. 

C. A. STEVENS—Appointed November 13, 1875; Assistant Appraiser July 14, 1883. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser’s Office , October 8, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to the inclosed printed circular from the Treasury De¬ 
partment, signed by you and addressed to me, in which you request a 
detail of facts and figures in answer to certain interrogatories therein 
contained, numbered from 1 to 24, inclusive, I have the honor to sub¬ 
mit the following answers, numbered to correspond with said interrog¬ 
atories, to wit: 

1. Please see answer to the seventh question. 

2. I have no knowledge that the nil amount of specific duty pre¬ 
scribed by Congress has not been collected. 

3. No textile fabrics for measurement are returned for duty in the 
second division. 

4. I have no knowledge that bogus or false packages of merchan¬ 
dise have been at any time ordered to the appraiser’s department for 
examination. 

5. I know of no evidence showing that false, incompetent, or inade¬ 
quate weighing or measuring is conducted on the wharves. 

6. I have no knowledge whatever regarding pending suits. 

7. On March 5, 1883 (see ss. 5604), the Department accepted as con¬ 
clusive the result of the trial of the case of Drepenbroeck vs. Robinson, 
the verdict being that certain church figures, which were cast or molded 
from a mineral substance are “ statuary ” or “works of art,” dutiable 
at 10 per cent, ad valorem. The importers claimed that the so-called 

“statuary” was produced by students of a so-called “art school” at 
Munich, Germany. It is a well known fact that the so-called “art 
school ” of Meyer & Co., at Munich, is simply an establishment devoted 
to the manufacture of all kinds of church decorations, and has no more 
claim to the rank of a school of art than the establishment of Froe Rob¬ 
ert, of Paris, France, and several other establishments where similar 
articles and figures are produced from a similar material, and in precisely 
the same manner, and which articles and figures, under Department 
ruling, are returned for duty under the provision for components. 

On February 15, 1884 (ss. 6176), the Department acceptedas conclu¬ 
sive the result of the verdict in the trial at Chicago of the case of the 
Elgin National Watch Company vs. Jesse Spalding, which was to the 
effect that “ enamel” (a fusible glass) should be classified as a watch ma¬ 
terial, dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem It is well known in the 
trade (which fact has been called to the attention of the Department) 
that the most extensive dealers in enamel do not recognize or class any 
of it as specially, or exclusively, intended for use in the manufacture of 
watches, and that a very much greater portion of it is used in the pro¬ 
duction of thousand of articles other than watches. For ten (10) years 
prior to the above-named decision enamel was classified as a manufact¬ 
ure of glass and returned for duty as such. 

Regarding the character of the testimony taken in the two cases 
above mentioned, or the causes which led the Department to accept the 
result of said cases as conclusive. I have no knowledge. 

Previous to the month of May last plain, glazed, and decorated earthen¬ 
ware, bath and wash tubs, also plain, glazed, and decorated earthen 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


683 


tiles, were returned for duty at 20 per cent, ad valorem by Examiner 
Lawrence, who was discharged from the Government service last April. 
In the month of May aforesaid the articles in question were transferred 
to t he second division, where they were returned for duty at 55 per cent, 
and 00 per cent, ad valorem, whicli rates have been sustained by De¬ 
partment decisions. 

8. Every one is liable to commit errors, but there can be no excuse, 
when merchandise is before an officer for examination, for his rating it 
incorrectly for duty on the plea of ignorance, and if it is done for dis¬ 
honest motives there must be a way of proving it. 

1 know of no reliable evidence to prove a guilty knowledge of the 
failure, or a conspiracy existing among the customs officials now in office 
to promote the failure to collect in New York the entire and full amount 
of duty that the law prescribed. 

9. Please see answer to the seventh interrogatory. 

10. The statutes provide ample means for fixing dutiable values on 
merchandise. 

11. in my opinion it could not be correctly accomplished. 

12. The examiner, whose salary is from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. 
The assistant appraiser must have such watchful supervision over the 
examiners as will enable him to know that they are performing their 
duties correctly and honestly. The appraiser officially Certifies to the 
collector the values reported to him by the examiner and assistant 
appraiser. 

13. I know of no such evidence. 

14. Regarding this question I have no knowledge. 

15. I know of no method or system which could be adopted which 
would prevent a dishonestly disposed person from attempting to corrupt 
others. Therefore it is reasonable to presume that bad influence will 
find its victim now as it has in the past. 

10. In my opinion a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty 
is the only means by which the evils and abuses now existing can be 
properly overcome and corrected. 

17. I have no means of knowing, but as a matter of opinion I should 
say they had not. 

18. In my judgment it would be impracticable for any consular 
agent to personally examine merchandise with a view to verifying the 
correctness of quantities or of market values before shipment. If it 
were practicable for him to do so in any instance, it would be necessary 
for him to see the merchandise packed and shipped in order to know 
that the same class of articles were forwarded that he had examined 
and certified to the value of. I presume that all consular agents are 
liable to be approached for dishonest purposes by dishonest shippers. 

The delay and annoyance which must arise from any attempt to ex¬ 
amine and verify all merchandise shipped from a consular district in 
order to verify quantities and ascertain correct market values would, 
it seems to me, be the source of unending complaint and vexation. 

The usual fee exacted by consuls in England for the certification of 
an invoice is $2.50. 

19. In my opinion the appraising officer should be held to a strict ac¬ 
count for his action in assessing values on merchandise as the law pre¬ 
scribes, and no benefit would accrue to the Government or importer by 
a division of responsibility with the executive or judicial power. 

20. This question will undoubtedly be answered more properly by ex¬ 
perts in the wool department. 


684 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


21. I have no knowledge that money is offered by passengers or that 
the same is received by Government officials while in the discharge of 
their duties. So long as weak men hold offices of trust, and foolish 
men exist and travel, possessed of a disposition to tempt them, I do not 
think that such practices can be altogether prevented. 

By sending all passengers’ baggage, except hahd-bags and satchels, 
to the appraisers’ stores for examination, means would be afforded for 
fixing the limit of responsibility, for the reason that under existing reg¬ 
ulations a limited number, comparatively speaking, of the owners of bag¬ 
gage would be liable to come in contact with the officers whose duty it 
would be to examine and return the same. Such a change would, un¬ 
doubtedly, cause much delay and annoyance, as well as some additional 
expense for brokerage, to the passengers. 

22. If smugglers and dishonest shippers have the disposition, and can 
evade the laws because of a high tariff, it does not seem to me that a re¬ 
duction of duty would have the effect to diminish their desire to continue 
to do so. 

23. I know of no reason why the evils existing, and failures to en¬ 
force the customs laws at the port of New York, should not prevail at 
all the Atlantic ports. 

24. I do not know. My knowledge regarding the facts desired to be 
elicited by some of the foregoing questions being limited, 1 fear that I 
have not been able to give any satisfactory or valuable information in 
answer to them. Such answers, however, as l have given are strictly 
according to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Very respectfully, 


C. A. STEVENS, 
Assistant Appraiser . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 122. 

WILLIAM KENT—Appointed Clerk, Boston, January 2, 18C6; Clerk, New York, 
January 2i, 1871; Assistant Appraiser May 15, 1878. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office, October 8, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to your confidential circular in relation to customs 
matters, I beg to submit the following remarks touching each of your 
twenty-four questions, in numerical order : 

1. There is no evidence in this division that rates of duty have not, 
within the last few years, been levied and collected according to law, 
accept on such articles as, from their character, two or more rates 
equally apply, and, as a rule, the highest rate has been adopted until 
overruled by the appraiser, or by a decision of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment or of the courts. 

2. Purely specific rates of duty on goods examined in this division 
apply only to combed silk (50 cents per pound), the importation of 
which is extremely limited in quantity, and no evidence exists that full 
duty has not been collected. 

3. Textile fabrics, if imported by firms of unblemished reputation, are 
only now and then actually measured through the medium of a yard- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 685 


stick; but if imported by firms of doubtful integrity, the scrutiny be¬ 
comes more general, and in a few cases goods have been found to exceed 
by actual measurement the lengths described on invoice and ticket, in 
which cases they have been confiscated. 

In merchandise paying compound duties, errors in weight are dis¬ 
covered to be more frequent, and greater care required in verification. 

4. Of late years I have had no knowledge of collusion on the part of 
any entry clerk or deputy collector to send a bogus or false package for 
examination as a fair sample of one in every ten. 

5. Having no goods for examination on wharves, I have no knowl¬ 
edge of any false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring. 

6. The existing law respecting rates of duty and differences between 
importers and collectors should be amended at the earliest practicable 
moment; the suits pending at this port alone amount to many thou¬ 
sands. 1 know not how many, nor do I know anything concerning the 
number pending at other ports; many cases can and ought to be classi¬ 
fied and consolidated, especially in cases of long standing where but 
one, or at most a few articles of the same general character, are in con¬ 
troversy. Many merchants appeal from the duty assessed on a grea; 
variety of articles when they have but little hope and no expectation of 
obtaining a verdict in their favor. Their hope lies in the fact that the 
defendant’s case is generally but half prepared and worse tried. Take, 
for instance, the article of so-called “silk-thread lace.” This case was 
tried in April, 1875, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, 
thereby reducing the rate from GO to 30 per cent, ad valorem (in con¬ 
formity with Schedule C, 42 T. I., old), on the ground that this article 
was made upon a cushion with thread wound on bobbins moved by 
hand. This included, subsequently, all cotton laces made in like man¬ 
ner. Then suit was brought to recover on “linen torchan” lace, with 
the same result, and finally a linen lace made upon a frame with a 
needle came into the same category as the result of auother suit,so that 
in this case I have now nearly two thousand invoices (almost worn out) 
as a first instalment to re classify for the fourth time, and when the end 
will be reached no one can foresee. To remedy this evil 1 would sug¬ 
gest the creation by law of a new tribunal, modeled somewhat after 
that recommended by the old tariff' commission, to try judicially all 
questions growing out of said differences. 

With such a tribunal in session for a tew months, the docket could 
be cleared and all new cases settled by a session of a few days at this 
pore once in three months, thereby saving to the revenue large sums in 
interest, secure uniformity of classification at all ports, and in my opin¬ 
ion obtain many verdicts in favor of the Government which, under the 
present system, are lost almost by default. 

7. Speaking only for the third division, the principal articles which have 
been undervalued consist of silks, velvets, and cotton embroideries, all 
of which have undergone a thorough investigation during the last few 
years, the latter article very recently. I have the honor to state that 
much the greater portion of silks and velvets are consigned by the man¬ 
ufacturers to their agents here, and as a rule are invoiced below their 
real value; but the following statement will, I think, serve to show that 
this class of merchandise has not reached the distributor’s hands with¬ 
out proper additions being made to approximate very nearly to dutiable 
values. 


686 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Total advances on invoiced values by this division during a period 
of six years and six months : 


1879 . 

1880 . 

1881. 

1882 . 

1883 . 

1884 . 

1885 (six months) 


$950,108 00 
1,127,284 00 
925,495 00 
1,360,800 00 
1,442,011 00 
1,703.275 00 
791,163 00 


8, 300,136 00 

on which an average duty of nearly 50 per cent, has been collected. 

I also add a condensed statement of the invoiced values of a great 
number of silk shipments, with the estimated values of experts employed 
by the Government at Horgen and Zurich in Switzerland and at Lyons 
in France, together with the action of the appraising officers at this port, 
which will explain the work accomplished. 


Francs. 

Invoice value. 4, 644,455. 93 

Expert value. 5,137,437. 55 

Appraised value ... 5,150,128.50 

Appraised value over invoice value. 505, 672. 57 

Appraised value over expert value. .. 12,690.95 


or 1.29 per cent, over the experts, and 10.88 per cent, over invoiced 
values. 

It is true that the estimates of the experts are alleged to cover tlie 
cost of material and labor without including manufacturer’s profits, wear 
and tear of machinery, and office expense $ but it should he remembered 
that great depression in trade has prevailed for many years throughout 
all C hristendom; half the looms in the silk districts being idle, the same 
rule applies to Germany and England, while in this country public 
sales embracing from 10,000 to 22,000 packages of domestic goods have 
been forced on buyers at prices below the cost of manufacture. When 
Parliament has appointed a commission to inquire into the causes of 
this general stagnation, and devise a remedy, is it strange, I ask, if we 
are unable in all cases to reach the high-water mark in prices'? 

Furthermore, I inclose a clipping from a morning journal which tells 
a tale not inappropriate here, and explains why the silk industry 
abroad is in such a deplorable condition. 

Inspecting cotton embroidet ies, no considerable undervaluations have 
been found to exist. Indeed, upon the stitch basis I cannot see how it 
is possible they can. It has ever been true that in the past very many 
invoices have been advanced to make market value, most of which 
covered embroideries alleged to have been regularly bought in the open 
market, but were clearly undervalued according to the stitch principle, 
and which could not have been detected by any other means. I could 
enlarge upon this subject for hours, but as all the facts appertaining to 
this question are about to be laid before the Department by the com¬ 
mission in session, 1 forbear. 

8. The fV.ilnre, if any. to do fetter has not come of ignorance, indo¬ 
lence, stupidity, or dishonesty on the part of Treasury officials, nor is 
there any evidence to even suspect any conspiracy among higher class 
of Treasury or custom-house officials. Whatever shortcomings there 
may appear to be, it is not easy to effect any considerable improvement 
in the service rendered by those under my charge. 















REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


687 


9. There has been no conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the 
present appraiser has reported to the collector any false dutiable values 
unless it be in certain instances upon cotton embroideries imported from 
St. Gall, Switzerland, by so-called manufacturers. In the instances re¬ 
ferred to I have been requested to further advance values by him, 
through, as I believe, the influence of certain special agents'of the Treas¬ 
ury, which, in my judgment, were not warranted in fact. Such evidence 
as there may be, if any, to corroborate the statements of the special 
agents, made by the local appraiser as against the views of the apprais¬ 
ing officers, will probably be found in the report about to be submitted 
to the Department by the commission now in session. 

10. There is not now, nor has there been, any confusion or doubt or 
conflict of opinion in this division respecting any of the elements to 
be ascertained in order to fix or declare the dutiable value, except the 
method of ascertaining the value of embroideries, the local appraiser 
advocating the stitch principle as the true basis of valuation. In all 
else the standard to be applied is well defined by the statutes, in the 
opinion of the appraiser, assistant appraiser, and the examiners. 

11. No sure average of the percentage of undervaluations can now 
be made by the appraiser for any year or series of years. Invoices 
could be identified, but articles only by invoice descriptions. This 
w ork would require an enormous extra clerical force, and employ their 
time for months, it not for years. 

The preceding table in reference to the percentage of undervalua¬ 
tions on silk invoices affords a fair index of all consignments of French 
and German goods. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual 
course of business, for a false return of value to the collector. His 
salary ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. 

The appraiser sees comparatively few invoices. His certification to 
the collector is usually affixed by a stamp applied by an employ6 of the 
invoice bureau, except on such invoices as have been advanced in value 
10 per cent, or more. These he signs in person. 

13. I have no satisfactory evidence that any Government officials 
in the consular department or elsewhere have assisted, consented to, or 
connived at, the presentation to the appraisers of false evidence of for¬ 
eign values. 

14. False values have been habitually reported to the several former 
collectors, but it cannot fairly be said that the failure, if any, to collect 
the full amount of duty has come of dishonesty, or been accompanied 
by guilty knowledge on the part of Treasury or customs officials, except 
such as have been publicly reported and punished in the past, whose 
names I cannot recall. I know of no money paid to American officials 
to obtain false reports of dutiable values, or, if any has been paid, who 
furnished it. I never heard of a corruption fund having been raised and 
disbursed. 

15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, 1 know T of 
no good reason why similar corrupt and venal influences may not 
still continue; but from the experiences of life I am constrained to say 
that the appraiser’s department, as at present conducted, will in respect 
of integrity, honesty, and faithful service compare favorably with any 
public or private institution in the land. 

16. In my opinion a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty 
would not :end to diminish bribery, because I doubt if it exists now to 


688 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


any considerable extent; besides, specific rates can be applied to but 
few textile fabrics without imposing the heaviest burdens upon the 
poorer classes. 

No. 17. There is no denying the fact that false invoices have largely 
increased in number and amount by the repeal of the moietv act in 1874. 

No. 18. It would not be practicable in the large American consular 
districts for any number of consular agents, no matter how alert and 
skillful, to personally examine a tenth part of the articles shipped to 
this country or verify the correctness of invoiced values. If this could 
be done, would it not tmd to a reliance on their work and beget indif¬ 
ference and carelessness on the part of examiners here ? In my opin¬ 
ion, vexatious delays caused by the examination of goods in the several 
consular districts, and the certification of invoices, would soon embroil 
the two Governments in sharp controversy. 

No. 19. 1 do not think it would be safe or useful to the revenues or 
just to importers to enlarge the jurisdiction of the executive or judicial 
powers respecting the ascertainment of dutiable values, which forms the 
basis on which ad valorem rates are levied. Its adoption would work 
mischief. 

No. 20. Wool is an article concerning which I am comparatively igno¬ 
rant, and can offer no information. 

No. 21. This question is one I cannot answer; I kuow nothing about 
the subject-matter. 

No. 22. I hardly think that if the tariff* should be considerably re¬ 
duced smugglers and dishonest shippers would cease to ply their nefa¬ 
rious calling. Indeed sometimes I think that Frenchmen and Germans 
would undervalue free goods from habit, if not designedly. 

No. 23. Respecting this question, I can only say that if I was a dis¬ 
honest shipper of merchandise from abroad I would enter all my goods 
at any other port than New York. 

No. 24. I deny that intentional false returns of dutiable values have 
been reported to the collector during my entire service of nearly twelve 
years in the appraiser’s department. 

Respectfully, 


WILLIAM KENT, 
Assistant Appraiser , Third Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 123. 


DANIEL J. MOORE—Appointed Clerk March 24, 1873; Examiner December 31, 
1873; Assistant Appraiser August 25, 1874, and July 25, 1885. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office , October 1 , 1885. 

Dear Sir: Your circular of the 27th of August asking for answers 
to twenty-four questions was duly received. 

The attention of my examiners has by me been called to the necessity 
of ausweriug/ti/by and freely those questions. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 689 


In regard to my answers, I feel that I have not been sufficiently long 
in the employ of the department to answer intelligently the questions 
asked. 


Very respectfully, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


DANIEL J. MOORE, 

Assistant Appraiser. 


No. 124. 

FRANK HAY—Appointed Assistant Appraiser March 8, 1878. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser’s Office , October 2, 1885. 

Sir : Circular paragraphs 1 and 2.—Respectfully referring to your 
confidential circular, without date, I beg to say that I have no evidence, 
neither have I reason to believe, that the specific rates of duty on glass 
covered by the provisions of T. I., new, paragraphs 137 to 141, inclusive, 
and the ad valorem duties on leather covered by paragraphs 460, 461, 
and 462, have not been levied and collected as the law provides. 

Circular question 16.—I think a change from ad valorem to specific 
rates of duty on leather would be a benefit to the revenue and greatly 
simplify its collection. 

The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible in the usual course 
of business for a false return of values to the collector. Salaries of ex¬ 
aminers from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. 

7 and 8.—I know of no such class of articles. 

10.—The place and time and the standard to be applied is, in my 
opinion, already defined by the statutes. 

Statement showing the character of merchandise examined in the eighth 

division , together with suggestions looking to the adoption of equitable 

specific duties in place of those now in force. 

All products of the sagar-cane now pay specific rates of duty under 
the provisions or T. I., new, paragraphs 236, 239, 240, 241, 242. Also 
sugar candy, not colored, 5 cents per pound, and confectionery, valued at 
over 50 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound under paragraph 244. 

Glucose and grape sugars now pay a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem 
under paragraph 21. Average price per 100 pounds for the past three 
years, $3. Equitable specific rate, 60 cents per 100 pounds. 

Glass (Schedule B, paragraphs 137, 138, 139,140, 141) now pays spe¬ 
cific rates of duty either by measure or weight. 

Enameled and ground glass now pay ad valorem rates of duty under 
Treasury decision dated October 2, 1879 (SS. 4229). These should pay 
specific rates as cylinder glass at the same specific rates as colored cyl¬ 
inder glass now pays under T. I., new, paragraphs 137, 138. 

Bent glass paying ad valorem duty under Department ruling dated 
January 20,1880 (SS. 4398), should pay specific rates according to kind, 
whether cylinder or polished plate, as the case may be. 

This would be in harmony with a legal decision in the case of How¬ 
ard vs. Merrill, referred to and acquiesced in by the Hon. Secretary of 
the Treasury in decision dated February 18, 1884 (SS. 6180). 

44 A 



690 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


T. I., new, paragraph 461; duty, 20 per cent.—Tanned calf-skins, 
chamois, and enameled leather: Quantity, 1,121 dozen ; weight, 24,624; 
value, $23,121.40; per pound, $1.10; per dozen, $4.39. Equitable spe¬ 
cific duty, 20 cents per pound. 

Goat and sheep skins dressed and finished: Quantity, 1,578 dozen; 
weight, 10,650 pounds; value, $15,562.50; per pound, $1.40; per dozen, 
$9.08. Equitable specific rate of duty, $2 per dozen. 

Skins for morocco, tanned but unfinished: 7,803 skins, weight, 6,212 
pounds; value, $3,284.76; average price per pound, 53 cents; duty, 10 
per cent.; equitable specific rate of duty, 5 cents per pound. 

Circular questions 1 and 2.—Sugar and other cane products, T. I., 
new, paragraphs 235 to 241, inclusive. Respecting the sampling of raw 
sugars imported at this port I have no positive evidence, but have reason 
to believe that for some time prior to and during the administration of 
the late appraiser, A. P. Ketchum, the force then employed in sugar 
sampling was much demoralized. For reasons only known to himself 
the late appraiser failed to even consider my urgent appeals looking to 
a thorough reform in this branch of the service. When urged by me to 
remove, or even transfer, from my division an examiner who in my own 
mind I believed to be corrupt, he told me that this person’s “political 
backing was too strong.” Very soon after Mr. McMullen assumed the 
duties of appraiser the reforms in this direction commenced. The cor 
rupt and inefficient elements heretofore existing have already been 
pretty thoroughly eliminated. The sugar examiners now assigned to do 
outside work are under the immediate supervision of Examiner Robert 
E. Bowne, and are all, I feel sure, united in the desire and endeavor to 
do thoroughly careful and honest work. Nothing less will be accepted 
by the appraiser. I may add that already a very decided and gratifying- 
improvement in the morale of the force is manifest. 

Respecting questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,11, 13,14,15,17,18,19, 20, 21, 22, 
23, and 24, 1 desire to say that I am unable to answer them in any sat¬ 
isfactory or useful manner. 

Very respectfully, 


FRANK HAY, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Assistant Appraiser. 


No. 125. 

D. C. HALSTED—Appointed Assistant Appraiser July 22, 1885. 

[Confidential.] 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office , October 3, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to the “circular marked strictly confidential, and con¬ 
taining twenty-four questions relative to the administration of customs 
laws,” which was sent to me from the office of the honorable Secretary, 
I have respectfully to state, in reply to inquiry numbered 12, that, as 
between the examiner, deputy appraiser, and appraiser, I consider the 
examiner primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of busi¬ 
ness, for a false return of value to the collector; for the reason that the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 691 

examiner, in the performance of his duties, has the handling and exam 
ination of the goods relative to which the return of value to the col¬ 
lector is made, and there cannot be a false return of value made without 
the knowledge and agency of the examiner. 

The assistant appraiser, relying upon the honesty and integrity of 
the examiner, may certify to an incorrect return of value by indorsing 
the written return of the examiner, but the assistant appraiser should 
be held responsible for the return, for the reason that he has full oppor¬ 
tunity to investigate the returns and has the power to change them. 
Tbe salary of the examiners, as known to me, is eighteen hundred dol¬ 
lars per annum, and the salary of the assistant appraiser is three thou¬ 
sand dollars per annum. 

The present appraiser, Mr. McMullen, is in fact an experienced of¬ 
ficial, and is capable, prompt, and efficient in giving information and 
advice in all matters pertaining to the business of the Department. 

Referring to inquiry numbered 16, 1 have respectfully to state that 
1 do not believe that a change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
be a benefit to the revenue, nor help to diminish a tendency, if any ex¬ 
ists, to bribery. I have no knowledge of textile fabrics, and therefore 
I do not know whether specific rates can be applied to them. 

I am of the opinion that ad valorem rates of duty should be applied 
in preference to specific rates, as far as possible, to all kinds of goods, 
for the reason that a more ju'st and equal assessment can more readily 
be made thereby; and further, by scaling specific rates based upon 
actual valuations opportunities for evasions and frauds are largely 
increased. 

Referring to inquiry numbered 18, I have respectfully to state that 
I believe it would not be practicable in the large American consular 
districts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American consular 
agents, no matter how numerous and alert, to personally examine arti¬ 
cles to be shipped from thence to the American ports, and to verify 
the correctness of invoiced values. I am of the opinion that there are 
not any consular districts in which American consular officers can safely 
and surely ascertain the true iuvoiced values of every shipment. 

The fees now exacted on each shipment in London and in England 
by our consuls for certifying invoices, even of small articles and of little 
value, is 10 shillings and 4 pence sterling—equal to $2.50 for each in¬ 
voice. 

With reference to all the other inquiries contained in the circular, 
viz, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 
23, and 24, I have respectfully to state that I have not sufficient knowl¬ 
edge of the subjects to make a just reply. 

With reference to the system of the certification of foreign invoices, 
I have most respectfully to state that in 1863, when the law was en¬ 
acted, establishing the present system of triplicate invoices, and con¬ 
sular certificates therefor, it was believed by myself and many other 
importers at that time, that the law was adopted as a “ war measure” 
on the part of the Government tacheck and prevent the secret importa¬ 
tion of all goods, contraband of war, and that so soon as practicable 
that portion of the law would be repealed as unnecessary and expen¬ 
sive. The old system prior to that time was fair, just, and comprehen¬ 
sive. The merchant received an invoice from his correspondent, he re¬ 
tained here a copy in his invoice-book, and he presented this invoice as 
his original and only invoice to the collector of customs, and made oath 


692 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


thereto accordingly at the custom-house, and in the event of irregu¬ 
larity or fraud being discovered the goods were seized and an imme¬ 
diate and thorough investigation was had and proceedings taken ac¬ 
cordingly. 

I have most respectfully to say that I can not see how the ordinary 
mode, as now adopted, of the certification of triplicate invoices by 
United States consuls in foreign ports can be a safeguard to prevent 
undervaluations or false invoices of goods imported. 

Very respectfully, 

D. 0. HALSTED, 
Assistant Appraiser Ninth Division. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 126. 

DAVID C. STURGES—Appointed Assistant Appraiser December 1, 1869. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

October 15, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a “strictly 
confidential” circular from the Department, in which lam requested 
to make “careful and official replies” to certain twenty-four principal 
inquiries, with their subdivisions, submitted therein. As the Depart¬ 
ment seeks, without doubt, to possess itself of such facts only as are 
known to me officially, or such suggestions as spring directly from my 
official experience in the administration of the tariff laws, I shall con¬ 
fine myself for the most part in the replies which follow to the full 
consideration of such of the inquiries only as address themselves to that 
knowledge or experience. 

Inquiry No. 1.—I have no knowledge that the rates of duty have not 
within the last few years been levied and collected as the law prescribed, 
saving as hereinafter stated. 

Inquiry No. 2.—I know of no evidence of any kind tending to show 
that there has been any failure at this port, at any time, to collect the 
full amount of purely specific rates of duty prescribed by Congress. 
Failure to collect such duties could arise only through failure on the 
part of the gauger, weigher, or appraising officer, for any cause, to 
make correct reports to the collector of the measure or weight of mer¬ 
chandise charged, in whole or in part, with specific rates of duty, or 
from incorrect classifications. 

Inquiry No. 3.—I am not officially familiar with the manner in which 
invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified in the usual course 
of the examinations made in this Department. No textile fabrics are 
examined in the division of which I have charge. 

Inquiry No. 4.—This question appears to have been suggested by the 
developments in the Lawrence case, which was a conspiracy of some- 
what extended ramifications. The evidences of such collusions come to 
light not before but after their exposure. With the present safeguards 
I doubt if it would be possible to repeat the Lawrence experiment. 

Inquiry No. 5.—This inquiry relates to transactions not within the 
official jurisdiction of this department. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 693 


Inquiry No. 6.—I respectfully submit the same answer as to Inquiry 
No. 5. 

Inquiry No. 7.—I can specify no class of articles bn which recent in¬ 
vestigations or existing facts show that the .Treasury Department, dur¬ 
ing recent years, has failed to levy and collect at this port the entire 
and full amount of duty prescribed by law. This statement does not 
cover, of course, cases of unknown or hypothetical undervaluations. 

I have not been made acquainted with the results of recent investi¬ 
gations, and, therefore, can form no judgment of their value as evi¬ 
dence, and I have no knowledge of existing facts tending to show the 
suggested failure. 

Inquiry No. 8.—My answer to Inquiry No. 7 may also be taken as 
my answer to this inquiry. 

Inquiry No. 9.—My answer to this inquiry is also, for the most part, 
contained in my answer to Inquiry No. 7. 

In any controversy as to market values arising between the appraising 
officer on the one side and the special agent or the consular officer on 
the other, (supposing each to be equal to the other in intelligence and 
integrity,)! think the presumptions are decidedly in favor of the judg¬ 
ment of the appraising officer. The judgment of the appraising officer 
is presumptively the judgment of an expert , who is engaged constantly 
in the critical examination of the qualities and values of imported mer¬ 
chandise. The special agent and the consul are rarely experts, and 
their judgments, for the most part, are founded upon alleged evi¬ 
dences of value, extrinsic to the merchandise, and very rarely, if ever, 
upon an examination of the merchandise itself. In other words, their 
judgments are generally founded upon secondary evidence. I do not, 
of course, deny the value of such evidence in special or exceptional 
cases, nor do I call in question the importance of the contributory ser¬ 
vice frequently rendered by the special agents, and sometimes by the 
consuls, in determining the correct market value of imported merchan¬ 
dise. 

Inquiry No. 10.—There has been, undoubtedly, and still is, some con¬ 
fusion, doubt, and conflict of opinion, in the private judgment of the 
officers of this Department, as to the construction to be given to section 
7 of the act of March 3, 1883. This is due, in part, to the circumstance 
that neither the constructive rulings of the Department nor the deter¬ 
minations of the courts have been altogether free from such confusion 
and conflict. The practice of this department has been rendered ap¬ 
proximately consistent and uniform through the active supervision and 
clear instructions of the appraiser. 

I submit the following statement of facts as in part illustrating the 
confusion, &c., referred to : 

It was recently held here, by General Appraiser Briggs, that vegeta¬ 
bles in tins are dutiable on the value of the naked vegetables, when such 
value is separately stated on the invoice, provided that the purchaser 
actually purchased the vegetables and the tins separately; and that the 
vegetables are dutiable on their naked value plus the value of the tins 
only when the purchase is made in the tins, at a price covering the value 
of the tins. 

This ruling was made in the case of the appeal of Thurber, Whyland 
& Co. from the action of this department in adding the value of the 
tins to make the true market and dutiable value of the vegetables. 

Succeeding in their appeal, under this ruling, they paid duty on a 


694 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


value, approximately, of 47 francs only per case of 100 tins, while all 
other importers paid duty upon a value, approximately, of 67 francs 
per case of 100 tins. If this ruling were accepted as correct, it would 
seem that the value upon which the purchasing importer is to pay duty 
is made to depend upon his own determination of the conditions under 
which he makes his purchases, and it will follow that there will he two 
differing dutiable values for the same merchandise purchased on the 
same date, from the same seller, in the same market, at the same total 
price. But this department has not followed the ruling in the case of 
Thurber, Why land & Co., and continues to add the value of the tins to 
make the correct market value of the vegetables in all cases where such 
value is not included in the entered value. It is but just to the general 
appraiser to say that his ruling was distinctly put upon the ground that 
it followed the decision of Judge Wallace in the recent case of Ober- 
teuffer et al. vs. Robertson. 

Inquiry No. 11.—This inquiry reverts to the matters grouped under 
Inquiry No. 9. I think no “safe average estimate can be made” of 
undervaluations judicially undetermined, or that are alleged upon evi¬ 
dence of indeterminate relevancy and value. 

Inquiry No. 12.—In the very necessities of the case, the examiner must 
be held “ primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of busi¬ 
ness,” for incorrect determinations and returns of the value of merchan¬ 
dise. 

The work of the deputy appraiser, like that of the appraiser, is largely 
executive, administrative, and supervisory. He has a more immediate 
and direct supervision of the work of the examiner than the appraiser, 
and is in the theory of the service officially responsible for the proper 
and faithful performance of that work. 

In all cases, of course, in which he personally examines merchandise, 
or in which his advice and assistance are sought by the examiner, his 
responsibility is personal, direct, and single. 

The salaries of the examiners vary from $1,200 to $2,500 per annum, 
the latter being the maximum compensation provided by law. 

The appraiser is very much else, “ ordinarily and in fact, than one 
who officially certifies to the collector the values of merchandise re¬ 
ported to him by the examiners and deputy appraisers.” I know of no 
officer intrusted with the administration of the tariff laws, whose duties, 
properly performed, partake less of routine , or less permit perfunctory 
performance, or which demanded higher qualifications or more severe 
and strenuous attention and application. 

Inquiry No. 13.—I have no knowledge of the existence of any evidence 
of the practices referred to in this inquiry. 

Inquiry No. 14.—In my judgment, it can “be fairly said” that the 
recited delinquencies, when they have been “habitual and systematic ,” 
have come of dishonesty and corruption. No other conclusion is pos¬ 
sible under the terms of the inquiry. I have no knowledge of such 
practices, nor of the “payment of money” to “American officials;” 
nor any knowledge of the agencies employed for the purposes specified. 

Inquiry No. 15.—If “ false valuations have in the past come of bribery 
and venality,” there is no reason to doubt that bribery and venality 
will produce like results in the future. I have no exclusive official or 
personal information that “false valuations” have been brought about 
by corrupting agencies in the past, nor any knowledge of any case in 
which such agencies are “now brought to bear.” 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 695 


Inquiry No. 16.—In tlie abstract, I do not favor “specific rates of 
duty,” for the reason that such rates necessarily involve inequality in 
taxation, or, in other words, inequitable taxation. Such rates unavoid¬ 
ably impose the highest per cent, of taxation upon the cheapest mer¬ 
chandise and the lowest per cent, upon the most expensive merchandise. 
Necessities are overtaxed and luxuries are undertaxed. It has been 
proposed to mitigate these acknowledged defects by providing a gradu¬ 
ated series of rates, adjusted to arbitrary divisions founded upon the 
weight, measure, or cost of the merchandise. 

It may be said, on the other hand, that the specific system would un¬ 
doubtedly simplify and cheapen the administration of the tariff laws, 
and that it would to a certain extent neutralize the frauds peculiar to 
the ad valorem system. But, on the other hand, it would almost cer¬ 
tainly develop frauds peculiar to itself. I think it would tend to divert 
rather than “help to diminish the tendency to bribery.” If underval¬ 
uations arq secured by bribery, of course bribery in that direction would 
be checked by a system in which the duty is not dependent upon value. 
There is no possible common basis of comparison between the two sys¬ 
tems on which the question of “benefit to the revenue” can be even 
approximately determined. 

Inquiry No. 17.—“False, or, more accurately, incorrect reports of value 
by the appraisers,” have no necessary connection with the repeal of 
the 41 moiety law ? 7 of 1874. The appraising officers were in no measure 
benefited or atfected by that law, nor by the law of .1863, “respecting 
the seizure of books and papers.” I know of no certain data by which 
it can be clearly shown that undervaluations have been either more 
numerous or more important than before the repeal of that law. I 
think the claim that such results have followed the repeal is largely 
speculative and theoretical. 

Inquiry No. 18.—It would certainly not be “practicable” for the con¬ 
sular agents in the large districts to “personally examine” the mer¬ 
chandise covered by the invoices they certify. Nor can I see that large 
advantage would result to the Government from such an examination, 
even if every consul were an expert, and the volume and variety of the 
merchandise did not make such a proposal chimerical. The law must 
still place the final appraisal in other hands. And then what safe- 
gaurds w ould assure the integrity of the consuls against the temptations 
that would certainly beset them if any superior weight were to be given 
to their certified judgments'? 

Inquiry No. 19.—It is my clear and decided conviction that the de¬ 
termination of all appeals from the action of the appraising officer, 
involving questions either of market values or of classifications , should be 
determined, primarily, by judicial methods, with right of further appeal 
to the higher branches of the “Federal judicial power.” 

Such a change from the present chaotic method (or no method) would 
certainly be “safe, useful to the revenues, and just to the importer” 
and the Government, and is imperatively required by every considera¬ 
tion of equity and sound policy. 

Inquiry No. 20.—I have no official knowledge of the matter covered 
by this inquiry. 

Inquiry No. 21.—I have no direct knowledge as to this alleged practice. 
Rumor has grown hoarse in proclaiming its existence, and I know ot it 
chiefly as a matter of rumor. If such practices prevail, as I cannot doubt 
that they do, to some extent, I think they could be corrected , in great meas- 


696 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


ure, by sending all baggage to the public stores for examination, or by 
providing some other suitable place where it could be examined as thor¬ 
oughly. Passengers might be required to furnish a full list of their 
accompanying baggage, together with a sworn statement of the value 
or cost of all new dutiable material contained therein. 

It would be necessary only that the penalties for false statements 
should be made more severe than in the case of merchandise regularly 
entered, to secure a very general compliance with the proposed require¬ 
ments. 

Inquiry No. 22.—I do not know what “ evidence’ 7 there is to show that 
the Treasury has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law at 
this port, nor if such alleged failure be established by conclusive evi¬ 
dence, nor whether it is confined to such articles as are charged with 
high rates of duty. It is my conviction that the keen competitions of 
commerce would be quite as likely to result in undervaluations as high 
rates of duty. The final and conclusive objections to extreme rates of 
duty are not to be found in that direction. The higher rates of duty, 
are, as a rule, imposed upon merchandise too bulky to admit of active 
smuggling, especially at the great seaports. 

Inquiry No. 23.—Presumptively, if there has been “failure on the part 
of the Treasury Department to enforce the revenue law” at this port, 
there has been a like failure, and “for similar reasons,” at the other 
“large Atlantic ports.” The agencies through which the Department 
enforces that law have not at this port been inferior, in any respect, to 
the agencies employed at other ports. Facts recently come to my 
knowledge demonstrate that there must be a large loss of revenue by 
reason of the failure to collect duty upon the full market value of mer¬ 
chandise at the interior ports. I have no knowledge of any failure to 
enforce the revenue law either at this port or any of “the large Atlan¬ 
tic ports.” 

Inquiry No. 24.—I have no knowledge of the reasons why “persons or 
officials concerned” in making “false reports to the collectors of duti¬ 
able values have not been” arrested, indicted, and punished. 

Respectfully submitted. 

D. C. STURGES, 

Assistant Appraiser, Tenth Division , Appraiser’s Department. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. v 


No. 127. 

GEORGE N. BIRDS ALL—Appointed Examiner April 20, 1877; Assistant Appraiser 

June 15,1878. 

Port of Yew York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street, September 18, 1885. 
Sir : I am in receipt of your printed circular (without date) request¬ 
ing “careful and official replies” to the twenty-four inquiries sub¬ 
mitted. Following, numbered to correspond, are replies to the ques¬ 
tions referred to: 

1. —I have no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied and 
collected as the law prescribed. 

2. —I have no evidence that upon articles which pay specific rates 
only the full legal amount of duty has not been collected. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 697 

3. —The widths of textiles are always measured; the lengths occasion¬ 
ally, to verify those on the invoices or tickets. Where goods are 
bought and sold by the piece of a given number of yards, the lengths 
are frequently verified by actual measurement while undergoing exam¬ 
ination, using, in making such measurements, the yard or metre stick 
provided for such purposes, Avhile resort is sometimes had to weighing 
to test the lengths. 

4. —No evidence of collusion of the character specified within my 
knowledge. 

5. —No evidence of “ false or incompetent or inadequate weighing or 
measuring on the wharves ’ ’ to my knowledge. 

6. —I could not suggest any amendment to the law that would prevent 
such differences. I do not know how many collectors’ suits are pend¬ 
ing in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. I should judge 
that “a plan might be devised” by which these suits could be more 
speedily disposed of. The law might be amended so as to require the 
payment of interest, at the legal rate in the State where judgment is 
rendered, in all cases, whether the judgment is in favor of or against 
the United States. The existing judicial system might accomplish the 
work of trying causes growing out of rates of duty or taxes, if efficiently 
worked; if otherwise, a customs tribunal would, and almost has, be¬ 
come a necessity. Such a tribunal would, in my opinion, more speedily 
settle disputes in matters of customs and internal taxation. 

7. —No evidence has been submitted to me showing conclusively “that 
the Treasury Department has during recent years failed to levy and 
collect in New York the entire and full amount of duty that the law 
prescribed ’’ on such merchandise as is assigned to my charge for ap¬ 
praisement. As to other merchandise, I have only hearsay evidence, 
gained from a slight knowledge of matters recently investigated at this 
port, and which, I believe, have been fully inquired into and reported 
upon. 

8. —In the instances referred to, it came about by the then appraiser 
ordering the examiner to reduce advances below the penalty point in 
cases of some favored importers. These cases have been recently in¬ 
vestigated, I am informed, and reports made to the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment by the commissions appointed for the purpose. 

9. —(1.) I cannot state how long the reporting of false values had ex¬ 
isted. (2.) I am informed the articles so reported consisted of kid gloves, 
ornamental feathers, worsted or hair yarns, and Scotch caps. (3.) The 
places of manufacture or shipment are not known to me. (4.) I do not 
know whether they were shipped by the makers or purchasers. (5.) I 
do not know whether a similar condition of things has existed at other 
ports. The examiners’ statements would, in some instances, appear 
to corroborate those of the special agents of the Treasury. 

10 . —There has been doubt and some conflict of opinion respecting the 
inclusion in, or addition of, the value of cartons, tillots, and other so- 
called charges to the market value of the naked merchandise. So far 
as I am aware, there is no difference of opinion as to the time and place 
and standard to be applied in determining the value of the merchan¬ 
dise per se. 

11. —I do not think a safe average estimate can be made of such under¬ 
valuations, and I do not know that the articles or invoices can now be 
identified. 


698 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

12. —If such false return of values occurs through ignorance or care¬ 
lessness, the examiner would primarily he responsible, and, providing 
the assistant appraiser had confidence in the integrity of his subor¬ 
dinate, and had not closely supervised the particular appraisement, 
the assistant appraiser would also be responsible in part. Examiners 7 
salaries range from $1,800 to $2,500, assistant appraiser at $3,000 per 
annum. The appraiser does much more than “ officially certify to the 
collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiners and 
assistant appraisers. 77 He assigns the merchandise to the different 
subordinates for examination and appraisal; his knowledge of the vari¬ 
ous classes of merchandise, and the ability of his subordinates in the 
appraisal of them, enables him to so distribute them that they may 
be faithfully and intelligently inspected and valued. In fact, the ap¬ 
praiser selects, causes to be appointed, and assigns to duty the subor¬ 
dinates under him. He also makes rules and regulations for the 
government of the business transacted within his department, and sees 
that the laws and rulings of the Treasury are uniformly enforced 
throughout every branch of it. 

13. —I have no evidence that any Government officials have connived 
at the presentation to the appraisers of undervalued invoices. 

14. —If true, I think it cannot he fairly said the failure to collect all 
the revenue has come of dishonesty on the part of customs officials. 
In some instances it may be true. I have no evidence of money being 
used to induce officials to report false values, nor have I ever heard of 
a 1 1 corruption fund 7 7 for such purposes, or of the means to raise and 
disburse it. 

15. —If undervaluations have come by corrupting customs officers, the 
same means may be tried again. Whether they be successful depends 
upon the honesty of the present incumbents and the vigilance of those 
officers whose business it is to supervise the work done by them. 

16. —In my own judgment, a change from ad valorem to specific rates 
would not benefit the revenue nor help to diminish a tendency to 
bribery. I think bribery could be less easily detected. False weights 
or measurements could be reported through collusion, and after re¬ 
moval of the goods the fraud could not easily be discovered. Specific 
rates can be applied to textile fabrics generally. 

17. —I am of opinion that the repeal of the moiety provisions by the 
act of June 22, 1874, has caused more undetected undervaluations, be¬ 
cause it removed an extra incentive to work for their detection. This 
dishonest importers have availed themselves of, they knowing that if 
the incentive is not there the risk of detection is lessened. 

18. —I think it is not practicable in large consular districts, such as 
London, Paris, &c., for our consular agents to examine all articles of 
merchandise designed to be shipped to the United States to verify the 
correctness of invoice values; but that it may be feasible for the" con¬ 
suls to familiarize themselves with the values of the leading articles of 
export to this country. I cannot state in which districts it can be safely 
and surely done in every shipment. I have no doubt complaints would 
be made of vexatious delays if it were attempted to hold invoices in 
order to examine values before certifying thereto. The legal fee is 
$2.50. I do not know personally what fees may be exacted in “ Lon¬ 
don and in England by our consuls for certifying invoices. 77 

19. —It is my judgment that it would be no more safe or useful to the 
revenues, nor more just to the importers, if the executive or the judi- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 699 

cial powers had greater jurisdiction in the matter of the ascertainment 
of dutiable value, the basis for the levying of ad valorem rates of duty. 
Take away from the appraiser 'his right to apply the knowledge of 
values and the judgment he has acquired by experience, and require 
him to conform to an inflexible rule in determining values for duty 
purposes, and he becomes, so to speak, a mere machine and of little 
value. 

20. —Regarding an u analysis of the history of the several rates of 
duty on wool since I860,” &c., I beg to defer to the opinions which 
may be expressed to you by the assistant appraiser and examiner hav¬ 
ing charge of the appraisal of that merchandise, my own experience 
in that direction being limited. I would merely add that I am not in 
favor of compound rates. 

21. —The‘feeing of inspectors of baggage may be better prevented by 
a regulation that each incoming passenger must be supplied with a 
blank declaration, having-also printed thereon that no fees are to be 
paid to customs officers, and specifying thereon the penalty for viola¬ 
tion of the law in that respect. 

22. —The evidence, so far as known to me, does not tend to show that 
where the Treasury Department has failed to collect all the duty the 
rate is too high, because it is not every invoice of merchandise subject 
to the high rate that is undervalued; it is believed to be only those 
entered by dishonest and favored importers which are undervalued, 
and they would be as apt to defraud were the rates lower, although 
the inducement is not so great. These undervaluations might be de¬ 
tected by employing only competent experts and comparison of invoices 
and merchandise. 

23. —I have no knowledge as to the manner in which frauds have been 
perpetrated at the other large Atlantic ports. 

24. —Some officials suspected of guilty knowledge of undervaluations 
have been complained of and removed from office. Why they were 
not arrested, indicted, and punished I am not informed. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. N. BIRDSALL, 

Assistant Appraiser . 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


No. 128. 


EDWARD ROWE—Appointed Assistant Appraiser July 2, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 28, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to the communication of the Treasury Department 
covering a series of questions addressed to me and requesting a reply in 
detail, I have the honor to state that many of the questions do not come 
within the range of my knowledge, and to those that do I herewith 
submit a statement in the following order: 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15,19, 23. 

3. The only true test that can be made is in a personal measurement 
of the goods, and it is impossible to do this- The goods, however, are 



700 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


measured when the examiner has reasons for so doing. The usual 
course is to count the turns and measure the width. The examiner in 
textile fabrics in this division informs^ne that in an experience of many 
years he has never known any attempt to defraud by false measure¬ 
ments. 

7. In the article of leather gloves, I have the daily evidence of an 
attempt to undervalue by the shipper, and, in the hope of successfully 
stopping this practice, have every case imported sent to this division 
for personal examination, with the result that fully 20 per cent, of the 
invoices are advanced. 

8. The examination by the commissioners of the glove business and 
the testimony taken by them will fully answer this inquiry, as also the 
question No. 9. 

10. There is the usual difference of opinion that will arise in all 
cases where the merchandise under consideration is of a mixed charac¬ 
ter and not more clearly defined. This, however, arises from a want 
of expert knowledge in the framers of the tariff act; but a regard and 
dependence upon the Treasury circular, so far as the examiner and 
appraiser are concerned, settle the matter. 

11. I think it could be done. 

12. I look upon the examiner as the most important factor in the 
collection of the revenue on imported merchandise, for it is upon his 
acquaintance with and his expert knowledge in connection with his 
character and honesty alone that the Government can depend on for 
an honest return of the revenue and a protection to the honest im¬ 
porter, as it is upon his return that much of the duty is collected. His 
salary is from $1,800 to $2,500. This amount of salary, in my mind, 
does not command such ability as the Government should have any 
longer than a better opportunity presents itself to the incumbent. Be¬ 
yond this, such insufficient salaries for the talent demanded and the 
power possessed open up a large field for temptation in time of need. 

The duty of the appraiser and deputy appraiser, if they gave such 
attention as their position demands, has not only a general knowledge 
of his divisions and its doings, but also that of his examiners and the 
duties they perform, by consultation on the classification of and ad¬ 
vance deemed necessary to make, and the correct rate of duty to be 
paid on the merchandise. 

15. I think the most effective way to stop bribery or venality, for 
the present or the future, is to obtain the services of the best and most 
efficient class of experts and give them salaries sufficient to pay them 
for their services, a proper recompense, and thereby render them free 
from temptation. 

I do not think the change from ad valorem to specific duty would 
have any effect in making consignors from abroad more honest in their 
invoices. To my mind, the only way to prevent venal and corrupt- 
practice is for the Government to have active, efficient, and honest 
officers to protect the revenue. Specific rates could be applied to tex¬ 
tile fabrics, but the result would be that the burden of taxation would 
fall upon the poor. 

19. I am of the opinion that a change of the existing law and prac¬ 
tice now in use would only tend to create confusion, and still more com¬ 
plicate the collection of the revenue, and be of no advantage to the 
importer. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 701 


23. I am of the opinion that in the ports of entry throughout the 
country goods are entered at a lower rate of duty than in New York, 
owing to a want of knowledge on the part of the examiner and ap¬ 
praiser in a proper classification of the merchandise and the foreign 
market value. 

Very respectfully, 

EDWARD ROWE, 

Assistant Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 129. 

CHARLES E. STOTT—Appointed Assistant Appraiser July 22, 1885. 

New York, October 1 , 1885. 

Sir : I have to regret that my brief service in the position that I have 
the honor of occupying does not enable me to respond in a more com, 
plete manner to the questions proposed in your confidential circular. 

Below I have the pleasure of submitting such answers as my acquaint¬ 
ance with the subjects will allow me to make. 

Very respectfully, 

CHAS. E. STOTT, 

Assistant Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. O. * 

Questions 1 , 2, 3, 4, and 5. Cannot state. 

6. Certain sections of the law seem somewhat obscure, and between 
others there appears to be some conflict of opinion. To the remainder 
of this inquiry I can return no reply. 

7, 8, and 9. Can give no information. 

10. While there exists in this division a fair understanding of the 
principal elements of dutiable values, doubts of the real intent and 
meaning of section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, do arise, which mate¬ 
rially affect the question under consideration, and occasion not unfre- 
quently some diversity of opinion. There seems also a want of harmony 
between section 2499 and paragraph 92, Schedule A, in the classification 
of new productions in the line of chemical salts that are from time to 
time being placed upon the market. 

11. Am not able to state. 

12. The examiner primarily, but not altogether. The assistant ap¬ 
praiser inherits a fair share of responsibility in the premises. Salaries 
of examiners vary. From what I have realized of the demands upon 
the appraiser’s time, I would say that he could scarcely do more than x 
officially certify the appraisements of the examiners and deputy ap¬ 
praisers ; but from the scrutiny certain elements of duty receive at the 
hands of the present incumbent, it would appear that his duties are not 
performed in a perfunctory manner. 

13. 14, and 15. Cannot say. 

16. A change from “ad valorem” to “specific” rates would un¬ 
doubtedly check the tendency to certain corrupt practices. As to the 



702 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


application of specific rates to textile fabrics, have not sufficient knowl¬ 
edge of said fabrics to state. 

17. Cannot say. 

18. I do not think it would be practicable. Cannot name the dis¬ 
tricts where the consular officers could accurately ascertain invoice 
values. Complaints would be sure to follow delays of any kind. 

19. I do not think that a disturbance of the existing law would be 
attended by any beneficial result. 

20. 21, 22, 23, and 24. Cannot say. 


No. 130. 

RODNEY SMITH—Appointed Examiner October 14, 1874. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

Barge Office , October 8, 1885. 

Sir : The following are my replies to your interrogatories in as full 
and explicit form as my limited time from other official duties will per¬ 
mit of: 

1. I know of no evidence to the contrary. 

2. I am not aware of any, 

3. This question can best be answered by the examiners who pass 
upon textile fabrics exclusively. 

4. I am not aware of any evidence of collusion, and have heard o 
only one official who has been guilty of the act, and I am pleased to say 
that he left the service as soon as his crime was proven. 

5. I am not aware of any. 

6. This question is respectfully referred to the district attorney. 

7. I am unable to specify any articles, within my own knowledge, 
where such a failure has occurred. 

8. If there has been any failure in this regard, I do not think it owing 
to ignorance, indolence, or dishonesty of the Treasury or custom-house 
officials; nor do I know of any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowl¬ 
edge of the failure or a conspiracy to promote it. 

9. I am not aware of any evidence that the appraiser has reported 
false dutiable values to the collector. I believe such a practice could 
■exist only for a short period in the same line of merchandise; importers 
are too watchful in their own interest to permit its continuation. I do 
not believe that the evidence furnished by special agents of the Treas¬ 
ury or the consular agents can at all times be implicitly relied upon. I 
can see no reason why they would not at times be misled. 

10. I have never heard of any confusion or conflict in the appraiser’s 
department. The statutes seem to me to be clear in regard to the stand¬ 
ard to be applied. 

11. I think not. 

12. The examiner, in all cases, except when his judgment is overruled 
by his superior officer. The assistant appraiser approves the report of 
the examiner. He should have such supervision over his division as to 
enable him to know the character and ability of his examiners, and he 
should be consulted in all cases of doubt, or when raising an invoice, in 
order that he may feel satisfied that all due precaution has been exer¬ 
cised for the proper protection of the revenue. The appraiser should 
also be made aware of, and consulted in, all matters of any magnitude 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 703 

before final action is taken and the examiner’s report completed. Ordi¬ 
narily, from the press of business, he is obliged to accept and officially 
certify to the values fixed and reported to him by the examiner and 
assistant appraiser. From $1,400 to $1,800. 

13. Not to my knowledge. 

14. I am not aware that false values have habitually or even occa¬ 
sionally been reported to the collector with any guilty knowledge of 
the fact. Under the previous administration of the Treasury, it is my 
firm belief that the tariff law has been as faithfully executed as was pos¬ 
sible with its many complications. 

15. If false valuations there has been, I am not prepared to believe 
that they were the result of bribery or evil intent, but more likely to 
have occurred from inexperience of the examiner or the want of facts 
known only to the manufacturer or the producer of the merchandise. 

16. I am not prepared to say that a change from ad valorem to a 
specific duty would be a benefit to the revenue. I do not think it would 
change the propensities of man. If dishonest in levying the tariff in one 
form, I scarcely believe he would be honest in the other. I am not pre¬ 
pared to say. 

17. I do not believe that the repeal of the moiety law has affected the 
reports of the appraiser in the slightest degree. I always had grave doubts 
of its utility or justness, as it gave such a wide range for the levying of 
blackmail. 

18. I should say not. Fees, $2.50. 

19. To my mind, the law in its present form affords all the safeguards 
required. I fail to see what usefulness to the revenue, or what addi¬ 
tional justice to the importer, could be derived from increasing the 
jurisdiction of the executive or judicial powers. 

20. This question I respectfully refer to the expert in the wool de¬ 
partment. 

21. No doubt this practice has prevailed, to a certain extent, in all 
of the larger ports in years past, especially soon after the war, at which 
period, and for some years after, the examination was much less thorough 
than at the present time. I am satisfied that the examinations have 
been improving in thoroughness from year to year, which has had a 
tendency to deter many from bringing dutiable goods in their luggage, 
thereby decreasing the necessity or the inclination to fee any one. It 
is also my firm belief that this pernicious habit has about reached the 
minimum. If a fee is passed, I am inclined to believe it only intended 
as a gratuity after the work is done, and not for any corrupt purposes. 

22. I am not aware of any evidence that would prove that the Treas¬ 
ury has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law. Nor do I 
believe that by decreasing the rate of duty a rogue could be made 
honest. The motive to undersell his competitor would be the same, 
the gain perhaps not quite so large. I believe in the Government’s 
ability to protect. 

23. I can see no reason why not; the cause and effect I believe to be 
the same. 

24. If such things have been done, and the culprit not complained of, 
the facts are beyond my knowledge. 

Respectfully submitted. 

RODNEY SMITH, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


704 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 131. 

ALONZO P. CARNER—Appointed Clerk July 3, 1872; Examiner August 3, 1876. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

October 7, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to the letter of the honorable Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury of a recent date, requesting answers to certain questions therein 
contained, I make the following answers: 

First question.- -There is no evidence within my personal knowledge. 

Second question. —There is none to my knowledge. 

Third question. —I do not examine textile fabrics, therefore am not the 
proper person to give this information. 

Fourth question.—1 know of none. 

Fifth question. —I know of none. 

Sixth question. —The United States district attorneys are the proper 
officials to give this information. 

Seventh , eighth , and ninth questions. —I have not sufficient knowledge 
respecting the information desired in these questions to give an opin¬ 
ion that will be of value to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury. 

Tenth question. —There has been considerable doubt as to the construc¬ 
tion to be placed upon section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, owing to 
the somewhat conflicting decisions of the Department, particularly as 
to whether the value of the usual and necessary sacks, boxes, or cover¬ 
ings of any kind, should be considered as an element of dutiable value. 
The latest decisions of the Department, however, would seem to have 
cleared up the matter considerably. 

Twelfth question. —In my judgment, the examiner is primarily and 
chiefly responsible, as he has both the invoices and merchandise before 
him, and, therefore, has the means of detecting anything fraudulent in 
the importation, either as to quality, quantity, or valuation, whereas 
the deputy appraisers and appraiser must necessarily make a more 
superficial examination. It would not, in my judgment, be practicable 
for either of them to have the merchandise before them; and, besides, 
it would be almost impossible, in view of their other duties, to make a 
personal examination. 

Thirteenth question. —If there is satisfactory evidence, I am not aware 
of it. 

Fourteenth question. —I think it can be fairly said that the failure has 
come of dishonesty in many cases and in incompetency in many others; 
and when from dishonesty, it has, no doubt, been accompanied by 
guilty knowledge on the part of the examiners, deputy appraisers, and 
deputy collectors. 

Fifteenth question. —I believe that some of the removals made by Ap¬ 
praiser McMullen, together with the belief that the Secretary of the 
Treasury has been and is endeavoring, if possible, to ascertain any and 
all corrupt practices connected with the collection of the revenue, has 
had and is having, for the present at least, a beneficial effect with those 
who in the past have been guilty of such practices; and, should the 
Treasury Department relax or cease its efforts in this matter, I believe 
such practices will, in a measure, return and be engaged in by thoso 
who have been guilty of them in the past. 

Sixteenth question. —I believe such a change in respect to many articles 
should be, for the reason that the duties could be more easily deter- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 705 

mined, and the question of undervaluation, which has been one of the 
principal means of defrauding the Government, would not arise. 

Seventeenth question. —I believe this question can be more satisfactorily 
answered by some other official. 

Eighteenth question. —It would no doubt be very beneficial if in all 
consular districts the goods to be shipped could be examined and the 
market value ascertained before shipment. The market value could be 
more easily ascertained in those places than here if competent persons 
were designated, and they were faithful and diligent in the discharge of 
their duties. I do not see why such a practice might not be obtained in 
nearly all of the consular districts. 

Nineteenth Question .—As I am not a lawyer, I do not consider myself 
competent to answer this question. 

Twentieth question .—I do not, and never did, examine wool, and, there¬ 
fore, cannot answer this question. 

Twenty-first question .—It is so believed, and it can only be prevented 
by appointing competent and honest men to perform such service. The 
presence of Treasury agents at such examinations cannot but have a 
beneficial effect, provided they are also vigilant and honest. 

Twenty-second question .—I do not know on what articles the Treasury 
Department has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law. 

Twenty-third question. —As far as I know, it has ; and I know of no 
reason why it should not be. 

Twenty-fourth question. —If false returns and reports to the collectors 
of dutiable values have been made in times past, I know of no reason 
why the guilty parties have not been arrested and punished, unless it 
be that they have not been detected in such criminal practices. 

I beg the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, in considering my 
answers, to keep in view that in my department I am detailed to ex¬ 
amine chiefly the following articles: Spices, fruits, fish, vegetables, 
seeds, oil, nuts, &c. 

I have the honor to remain, your most obedient servant, 

A. P. CARNER, 
Examiner in the Tenth Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


132. 

DANIEL W. LEE—Appointed Examiner May 9, 1871. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

October 10, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to your circular of September 27, con¬ 
taining twenty-four questions relative to the administration of customs 
laws, I have the honor to state that in respect to the matters referred to 
in some of these questions I have not sufficient experience or knowl¬ 
edge to give the desired information. 

In reply Question 10,1 would say that the doubts which have existed 
as to some of the elements of dutiable value have been nearly all settled 
by the decisions of the Department and of the courts. 

Probably a clearer definition of market value would be desirable. 

45 A 



706 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


There is an uncertainty, when the price for home consumption differs 
from the price for export, as to which should be taken as the correct 
dutiable value. With some merchandise quite a difference in these two 
prices exists, especially when the merchandise is protected by a patent 
or copyright at home and not so protected abroad. 

The price actually paid by the importer, when the merchandise is 
bought by fair and open purchase, would seem to constitute market 
value, even if lower than that prevailing for the home market. This 
seems to be in accord with the decision of the Department of May 15, 
1877, (Synopsis, 3238,) which states that “the general range of prices 
actually paid for books shipped from foreign countries to the United 
States” may properly be accepted as a standard for the “actual market 
value or wholesale price” prescribed by law as a basis for assessment of 
duty. 

11. No safe average estimate can now be made of the percentage of 
the undervaluations of appraisers in any year or series of years. The 
merchandise which may have been undervalued has in most all cases 
gone into consumption, and an attempt to estimate the undervaluation 
must be almost altogether a matter of guess-wbrk and of no real value 
whatever. 

12. As between the examiner, assistant appraiser, and appraiser, the v 
examiner is held to be primarily and chiefly responsible for a false re¬ 
turn of value to the collector. Of course neither the assistant appraiser 
nor the appraiser can make a personal inspection of all the articles sent 
to the public store for examination, while the examiner to whom they 
are sent, and who does see them, must be held to be so far responsible 
as the facilities which he has for obtaining market value will enable 
him to do so. The assistant appraisers and the appraiser can approve 
or disapprove of the returns made by the examiners, or amend them, 
or ignore them altogether and make themselves such returns as they may 
deem to be more correct. The appraiser is much more ordinarily and 
in fact than one who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed 
and reported to him by the examiners and assistant appraisers. 

The correct ascertainment of values and the proper classification of 
the merchandise imported are probably as important duties as any in 
the custom service, and require the utmost care and vigilance as well 
as skill. 

The appraiser, in addition to having the discipline of his department 
to supervise and maintain, is constantly called upon to decide the differ¬ 
ences which arise between the importers and examiners as to the proper 
classifications, and even values, and his decision is final, so far as his 
department is concerned. 

There is probably no other department in the customs service where 
the knowledge and efficiency of the head of the department exerts so 
much influence on his subordinates, or where such continued careful, 
personal supervision is necessary. 

16. Specific rates of duty are in all cases desirable when they can be 
justly levied. There are, however, many articles on which a specific 
rate would be either prohibitory on the cheaper class, or merely nomi¬ 
nal on the more valuable. Thus, printed matter varies in value from 
20 cents to $15 and more per pound; and while the present rate of duty 
of 25 per cent., which is at about the rate of 5 cents per pound on the 
cheaper publications, is almost and in fact altogether prohibitory on 
some of them, 5 cents per pound would be merely nominal on those of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 707 

high value. On such merchandise as this an ad valorem duty seems to 
be the fairest, and will bring in more revenue to the Government. 

18. It would seem to be practicable in all the American consular dis¬ 
tricts for American consular agents to personally examine articles to 
be shipped from thence to American ports, and to verify very nearly 
the correctness of the invoiced values of the same. It is not to be sup¬ 
posed that they could ascertain the correct dutiable value of each ship¬ 
ment, but they could investigate such goods and invoices as there was a 
doubt about their being properly valued. There need not be vexatious 
delays, as when the same kind of merchandise is regularly exported the 
investigation, could be continued until the consul was satisfied, and his 
action in regard to the invoices could then be determined. 

If the consul could be empowered to withhold his certificate when 
the shipper refused to give any explanation, it would probably, in most 
instances, induce him to reconsider his refusal. It does not seem likely 
that any foreign power would listen to the complaints of any shipper 
who would not give a consul any opportunity of satisfying himself that 
his invoice prices were correct. 

It is desirable that the consul shall require the shipper to state sepa¬ 
rately on his invoice the market value of the merchandise, as required 
in section 654 of article 30 of the consular regulations, relating to the 
authentication of invoices. 

Many invoices, after giving the prices of the merchandise, state that 
these prices include the cost of transportation, case charges, consul’s 
certificate, &c., and an amount to cover these is deducted from the in¬ 
voice. It is often very difficult to ascertain the correctness of these 
charges, and their elimination from the cost of the goods is much to be 
desired, and will prevent the covering up of some fraud. 

Government agents stationed abroad, who could- assist the consuls in 
investigating suspected undervaluations, might be of great assistance. 
They or the consuls might be furnished by the appraisers with the names 
of shippers or manufacturers of whom information was desired, and the 
information obtained by them might materially assist the appraiser’s 
department in the ascertainment of dutiable values. 

19. The ascertainment of dutiable value is the ascertainment of a 
fact. It is doubtful if it would be judicious for the executive or the 
judicial powers to endeavor to ascertain these facts. It would overbur¬ 
den either of them with a great number of appeals, the executive espe¬ 
cially, if it cost the importer nothing to appeal. It is not probable that 
either the executive or the judicial powers would be able to give the 
same time and attention to the subject as the appraisers and reapprais¬ 
ers, or that they could arrive at any fairer result. The present system 
of appraisement and reappraisement, if conducted by competent ap¬ 
praisers, is likely to give the best results attainable. 

22. A high rate of duty will always cause dishonest importers to at¬ 
tempt to evade it, and it is doubtful if these rates are really beneficial, 
either to our home industries or to the people at large. 

Very respectfully, 

' DANIEL W. LEE, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


708 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 133. 

JAMES E. WELCH—Appointed Examiner September 29, 1875; May 7, 1878. 

Port of New York. 

Appraiser’s Office , October 10, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your circular letter, without date, I respectfully sub¬ 
mit the following: 

In answer to interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 
and 24, the scope of my duties has not been such as to enable me to 
form a correct opinion. 

3. By actual measurements. 

6. The existing law and system are cumbersome and expensive, in¬ 
volving vexatious delays, and operating in many cases to debar import¬ 
ers who have just claims from prosecuting them. There can be no good 
reason why a plan should not be devised and put in execution whereby 
disputes between the Government and importers should be promptly 
and expeditiously settled, at a small expense. 

The other questions under this number I cannot answer. 

10. I am of opinion that cases frequently arise in which there is a 
conflict of opinion among the appraising officers with regard to the 
proper and correct methods of ascertaining dutiable values. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual 
course of business, for all returns of values. In cases of doubt or dis¬ 
pute he will consult with the assistant appraiser of his division, but 
these cases are comparatively rare. In still more rare and exceptional r 
cases the appraiser will be consulted, but in such cases his decision 
will be judicial rather than technical. The appraiser is the executive 
officer of the department, and is rarely an expert in any kind of mer¬ 
chandise. The present honored chief of this department is, however, 

a notable exception to this rule, he having from long experience ac¬ 
quired technical knowledge of a high order in many varieties of mer¬ 
chandise. The duties of the assistant appraiser are, as relating to 
the business of his own division, analogous to the duties of the ap¬ 
praiser, largely administrative, and thus rendering it impossible for him 
to make a personal inspection of goods. 

The maximum salary of an examiner is $2,500; the minimum has 
always been $1,800, until two or three years ago, when Appraiser 
Ketchum raised several clerks of lower salaries to the grade of exam¬ 
iner, without raising their salaries. 

13. I cannot speak as to the integrity of our consuls abroad, but in an 
experience of ten years upon the docks in connection with the examina¬ 
tion of passengers’ baggage, I have had weekly evidence of the utter 
and deplorable ignorauce of our revenue laws and regulations on the 
part of our foreign consuls. Tourists and others are constantly misin¬ 
formed by them as to rates of duty, and many articles which con¬ 
suls should know to be dutiable are declared by them to be exempt 
from duty. Confusion and discontent are bred of this inexcusable 
ignorance. 

I would recommend that a copy of Heyl’s Tariff, and a copy of Treas¬ 
ury laws and regulations be furnished to each of our consular agents 
abroad, with an admonition to carefully study the same. 

16. I do not believe that a change from ad valorem to specific duties 
would be a benefit to the revenue. I am unable to see how specific rates 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 709 


could be applied to textile fabrics without bearing unequally and un¬ 
justly against either the higher or the lower grades. In my opinion, 
the present specific portion of the compound rates applied to woolen fab¬ 
rics should be abolished or superseded by an equable ad valorem rate. 

18. In my opinion it would be a physical impossibility for an Ameri¬ 
can consular agent at either of the large cities named to personally ex¬ 
amine all the articles shipped thence to American ports, nor, were he 
able, would such examination have the slightest value as determining 
the value of such articles, our consuls being for the most part men 
wholly without the knowledge or experience to fit them for this service. 

19. This question relates to a subject so broad and so important that 
while I have very decided opinions concerning it, it can hardly be 
treated within the limits of this communication. I will only say that I 
am so impressed with the fallibility of human judgment that 1 regard 
it as a most dangerous principle that the conclusions of any one man, 
however gifted he may be, should in all cases be final and conclusive, 
never subject to review. 

21. With regard to this matter I have no knowledge beyond common 
report, nor am I able to suggest any remedies other than those now in 
operation. 

Respectfully, 


JAMES WELCH, 


Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary. 


No. 134. 

JAMES S. DUMOND—Appointed Opener and Packer, New York, February 19, 1879; 

Clerk and Verifier June 30, 1883; Examiner July 16, 1883. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 10, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to a circular from the Treasury Department, marked 
strictly confidential and signed by you, with the request to answer cer¬ 
tain questions, I have the honor to submit the following answers. 
Questions from 1 to 6 I have no knowledge. 

7. The only article coming before me for examination, which the 
Government have failed to collect the full amount of duty, is decorated 
plaster and wood church statuary, consigned to A. Diepenbroeck, of 
this city, and admitted as works of art, at 30 per cent, ad valorem, in¬ 
stead of paying duty according to material. 

8. I do not know. 

9. I have no knowledge. 

10. I have no knowledge of there being any confusion or doubt or 
conflict of opinion in this department concerning the dutiable value of 
goods. 

11. It could not. 

12. The examiner is chiefly responsible for a false return of value, as 
it is impossible for either the appraiser or assistant appraisers of the 
differdflt divisions to personally examine merchandise passing through 
this department. The appraiser officially certifies to the collector the 
values reported to him by the examiners and assistant appraisers. 

13. 14, 15. I do not know of any. 



710 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


16. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates would benefit 
the Government; and, also, if there is any bribery, it would have a 
tendency to stop it. We have no textile fabrics in this division. 

17. I do not know. 

18. It would not be practicable for consuls to examine goods before 
shipment. Consul fees, $2.50. 

19. It would not. 

The balance of the questions, I have no knowledge. 

Respectfully, 

JAMES S. DUMOND, 

Examiner of Toys , Musical Instruments , &c., Second Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of Treasury. 


No. 135. 


JOSEPH FREED—Appointed Clerk and Verifier June 4, 1873; Examiner September 

26, 1883. 


Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office , October 5, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully referring to your circular indorsed strictly confi¬ 
dential, I have the honor to submit the following reply: 

1. To my knowledge, none. 

2. 1 know ot no evidence that such is the case. 

3. Have had no experience with that class of merchandise. 

4. I know of no evidence that such is the case. 

5. 1 know of none. 

Questions Nos. 6 to 11 and Nos. 13 to 24 can be answered intelligently 
only by persons who have very carefully investigated and considered the 
subjects referred to—a Treasury agent, for instance. 

12. The examiner is privately responsible for the return of values to 
the collector; the salary of such officer ranges from $1,400 to $2,500 per 
annum. At a port like this, where so much business is transacted, it is 
impossible for the appraiser to do anything more than certify^ the exam¬ 
iner’s return. 

Very respectfully, 

J. FREED. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 136. 

J. McC. FARRINGTON—Appointed Examiner September 1, 1868. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office , October 14, 1885. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a circular marked 
confidential, to which I reply as follows: 

1. The only knowledge I have of failure to collect the rate of duty 
prescribed by law has arisen from a misconstruction of the statutes! 
When cases of this nature arise they are easily remedied by an appea. 
to the Department for ruling upon the disputed point. 




711 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


2. I believe there is evidence, but I cannot speak from personal knowl¬ 
edge. It, however, only applies to improper classification. Frauds 
or mistakes of this nature are, however, easily detected and short¬ 
lived. A ruling on a classification is so sweeping as to tie the hands 
of an appraiser or examiner. If, after such ruling, an appraiser or ex¬ 
aminer should not properly classifiy the article it would virtually con¬ 
vict him of either cunning or fraud, or else establish his incompetency. 
In either case the Government has a sure and speedy remedy. With 
appraisements ad valorem the case is different. The market value, 
always varying is fixed according to the judgment and in the best 
evidence of the examiner. 


In the exercise of this duty he has far greater latitude than under spe¬ 
cific rates, when classification is, or can be, fixed by rigid departmental 
decisions, and in proportion to his latitude is there room for collusion 
and fraud. In my own department all the articles appraised bearing 
specific rates are two, namely, fruit juices and ginger ale, and from my 
twenty-three years’ experience, I believe to fix a specific rate for these 
articles would redound to the interest of the Government and importer. 

12. The examiner is personally responsible for the true appraisement 
of all articles passing through his hands. While his standing in the 
department is unimpeached, his action on an invoice is practically final 
so far as the Government is concerned, the assistant appraiser and 
appraiser in their executive capacity simply certifying to his findings. 
The assistant appraiser is responsible, in a general way, for the good 
conduct of his subordinates, and would be primarily responsible for any 
fraud committed by an examiner or any subordinate in his division after 
a previous irregularity by an examiner or subordinate had been called 
to his attention. The appraiser holds the same relation to the assist¬ 
ant appraiser that the assistant appraiser has to the employes in his 
division. The salary of an examiner is from $1,800 to $2,500 per year, 
and is inadequate to the duties and skill required of him. 

16. I have practically answered this question in No. 2. I believe that 
it is possible to fix specific rates to textile fabrics, although the problem 
is an exceedingly difficult one to solve. 

21. I cannot speak from personal knowledge. I believe, however, 
from continued reports that fees are in many instances paid to inspectors 
by passengers arriving at this port. It is my conviction that this prac¬ 
tice of offering and receiving a fee is far more general than commonly 
believed. In my opinion there is only one way to break up this practice. 
As long as the inspectors are allowed to meet the passengers the 
practice will be continued to a greater or less extent. If the baggage 
could be examined in a room to which the passengers had no access, 
and between the arrival of a steamship and the completion of the bag¬ 
gage examination, the inspectors could be kept apart from the pas¬ 
sengers. The opportunities for collusion would be reduced to a mini¬ 
mum and the practice thereby virtually broken up. 

The balance of the questions I cannot answer from any facts in my 


possession. 

Respectfully, 


4 

J. McG. FARRINGTON, 

Examiner Tenth Division. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


712 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 137. 

WILLIAM H. WARD—Appointed Examiner June 1, 1876. 

Appraiser’s Department, 

New York , October 10, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to the circular of the Hon. Sectretary of the Treas¬ 
ury, of a recent date, requesting answer to certain questions, I make 
the following reply: 

1. There is no evidence to my knowledge 

2. There is none that I know of. 

3. I am not the examiner of textile fabrics, and am not the proper 
person to give this information. 

4. I do not know of any. 

5. I do not know of any. 

6. The United States district attorneys are best qualified to give this 
information. 

7. 8, 9. I have no knowlege covering these questions that would be 
of value to the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 

10. There has been much doubt as to the construction to be placed 
upon section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, owing to the somewhat 
different decisions of the Department, as to whether the value of the 
usual and necessary sacks, boxes or coverings, should be considered as 
elements of dutiable value. The late decisions of the Department, how¬ 
ever, would seem in a manner to have cleared up the matter. 

11. It would be very difficult. 

12. In my judgment the examiner is chiefly responsible, as he has the 
invoices and merchandise before him, and therefore should detect any¬ 
thing fraudulent in the importation, whereas the deputy appraisers 
and appraiser must necessarily make a more cursory examination; it 
would be impracticable for either of them to have the goods before them. 

13. There is no information to that effect that I know of. 

14. I think it can be fairly said that the failure has come of dishonesty 
in many cases and incompetency in others, and when from dishonesty 
on the part of the examiner the assistant appraiser would likely dis¬ 
cover it in a short time. 

15. I believe that the knowledge and experience of Appraiser 
McMullen, together with the belief that the Secretary of the Treasury 
has been endeavoring if possible to ascertain all corrupt practices con¬ 
nected with the collection of the revenue, has had and is having a bene¬ 
ficial effect. 

16. I believe a change to specific rate might be desirable on many 
articles. 

17. I believe this question can be better answered by some other 
official. 

18. It would no doubt be very beneficial if in all consular districts 
the goods to be shipped could be examined and the market value as¬ 
certained before shipment. The fact of such investigation would prove 
a check to undervaluation. 

19. As I am without legal knowledge I do not consider myself com¬ 
petent to answer this question. 

20. I do not and never have examined wool; cannot answer this ques¬ 
tion. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 713 


21. It is so reported, and it can only be prevented by appointing com¬ 
petent and honest men to perform such service. 

22. I do not know of any articles the Treasury Department has failed 
to collect the duty prescribed by law. 

23. As far as I am informed it has. 

24. If false returns and reports to the collectors of dutiable values 
have been made in time past, I know of no reason why the guilty parties 
have not been punished unless it be that they have not been detected 
in such criminal practices. 

In conclusion, I beg the honorable Secretary of the Treasury in con¬ 
sidering my reply to keep in mind that in my department I am detailed 
to examine chiefly the following articles: Baskets, pipes, meerschaum, 
willow, amber, chalk, marbles, matches, &c. 

I have the honor to remain, your most obedient servant, 

W. H. WARD. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 138. 

JOHN W. CORNING.—Appointed Examiner May 14, 1883. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser’s Office, October 13, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to letter from Secretary without date, requesting an¬ 
swers to twenty-four questions relative to custom matters, I have the 
honor to state, in answer to the questions, taking the same in their 
numerical order, as follows: 

1. None that I know of my own knowledge. 

2. None that I know of my own knowledge. 

3. By measuring the fabric in the piece per inch or per yard and cal¬ 
culating the whole amount with the inch or yard as the unit, comparing 
and verifying the result with the statements contained on the invoices. 

4. None that I know of my own knowledge. 

5. Regarding bulky merchandise paying duty by weight or measure, 
I am unable to speak, not having the handling of the same. With re¬ 
gard to small articles, however, contained in passengers 7 baggage, inad¬ 
equate weight or measure cannot be otherwise than often taken, owing 
to the absence at the time of any proper implements for determining 
the weight or measure. 

6. My answer is only that of a layman, as I have no knowledge of 
the court business involved in suits with the collector, and can only 
venture the expression that in my judgment the adoption of specific 
duty would correct many of the evils complained of. 

7. None than I know of my own knowledge. 

8. Answered by reply to previous questions. 

9. I am not acquainted with custom-houses of any other port than 
New York, and have no personal knowledge that the appraiser there 
has ever reported any false dutiable values. 

10. There has been and is considerable doubt and conflict of opinion 
about the question of charges which many importers claim are exempt 
from duty under section 7, act March 3, 1883. 



714 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


11. There being such decided and difference of opinion regarding 
undervaluations, that in ray judgment any estimate of the same would 
be only speculative. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, and his salary 
varies from $1,400 to $2,500 per annum. Under several administra¬ 
tions of the office, I am informed the appraiser was not much else than 
one who certified to the collector the values fixed and reported to him 
by the assistant appraiser. 

13. None that I know of my own knowledge. 

14. I am unable to answer this question from any personal knowledge 
or belief on the subject. 

15. No reason unless it be the vigilance of the administration now in 
power. 

16. In my judgment specific duties are to be preferred to ad valorem, 
and if there were an accommodating spirit among interested parties, 
could be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. I have not sufficient specific information to answer this question. 

18. My answer must be the same as that made to the previous ques¬ 
tion. 

19. In my judgment the courts of the United States should have 
jurisdiction to interfere when the advances involve charges, and in all 
other cases when the advances are greater than 5 per cent.; and also 
in the case of all advances of a less amount where the importer shows 
an actual purchase and sale. 

20. Not being an expert examiner of wool, I am unable to answer the 
question. 

21. I have no personal knowledge of any such practice existing at 
the port of New York. 

22. I do not possess sufficient information on this point to express an 
opinion. 

23. Answered by previous question. 

24. Not possessing any personal information or knowledge that false 
returns or reports have been made to the collector, I am unable to make 
further answer to the inquiry. 

All of which is respectfully submitted by 

JNO. W. CORNING, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 139. 

GEORGE C. HAMMILL—Appointed Examiner June 29, 1878. 

Port of New York, 
Appraisers Office , October 20, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to your circular of inquiry (marked “strictly confi¬ 
dential ”) on the subject of our custom laws, their operation, evasion, 
&c., is at hand, and finds me, I am sorry to confess, wholly unable to 
render any valuable assistance to the Department in its consideration 
of this important matter. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 715 


A majority of the questions propounded are addressed to specialists 
in branches of the service very different from the one in which I have 
the honor of serving. 

On the subject of our consular service and the practicability of a 
closer examination of goods before their shipment, together with all 
questions touching our custom relations abroad and custom reforms 
at home, I do not feel myself sufficiently the u political economist” to 
venture an opinion, which would of necessity be both crude and un¬ 
profitable. 

The 12th question is the only one of the many to which I am able to 
give even a comparatively comprehensive answer. As between the 
examiner, deputy appraiser, and the appraiser himself, I look upon the 
examiner as the official primarily responsible in the usual course of 
business for a false return of value to the collector. It is the examiner 
who inspects and grades the importation, and upon his report is based 
the subsequent action of the deputy appraiser and the appraiser him¬ 
self. 

As to whether or not the appraiser is ordinarily only an unnecessary 
middle man between examiner and collector, I can offer no opinion; 
certainly his duties embrace the certification of examiners’ reports and 
their transfer to the collector. What other or more important jurisdic¬ 
tion he may have I am unable to say. My reason for fixing upon the 
examiner as the one most likely in the ordinary course of events to at¬ 
tempt a false return of valuation, arises from the fact that collusion in 
this case would embrace only importer and examiner, whereas in the 
case of a false return from appraiser to collector unless an understand¬ 
ing existed between importer, examiner, and appraiser, the danger 
would be so greatly augmented as to render the scheme unfeasible. 

1 do not think that in our public service this latter example of sys¬ 
tematized machine work, dishonesty is as liable to be put into operation 
as the individual unfaithfulness in the first case, when a single transac¬ 
tion between importer and examiner settles the business, and in a great 
measure confines and minimizes the risk. 

1 can only say in response to the question asking for direct informa¬ 
tion on existing irregularities in the service, that I know of none,* and, 
allow me in this connection to assure you that as an honorable man and 
honest official I shall ever protect the administration of my department 
affairs with watchful interest and best service as a trust, the violation 
of which affects my personal honor. 

With many regrets for the unavoidably meager contents of this letter, 
and with assurance of my willingness to assist you in any manner and 
to any extent consistent with my information, I have the honor to be, 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

G. E. C. HAMMILL, 

Examiner , Cigar Department , Tenth Division . ’ 
Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury: 


716 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 140. 

JOHN Q. MITCHELL—Appointed Clerk, New York, July 14, 1881; Examiner June 
13, 1882; Discontinued June 26, 1884; Appointed Examiner May 18, 1885. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office , October 6, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully referring to your confidential circular containing 
twenty-four questions relative to tlie administration of the customs laws, 
I have the honor to submit the following replies. The length aud char¬ 
acter of my experience in the customs service have afforded few oppor¬ 
tunities for me to obtain exact information on most of the subjects to 
which your questions relate. As an examiner of books and printed 
matter my work is and has been distinct from other subdivisions of liet 
appraiser’s department. 

1. This is the whole question of classification, which is fully as difficult 
and important as the question of value. Evidence that improper classi¬ 
fications have been made has recently been published in the daily pa¬ 
pers. For example, it has been affirmed and reaffirmed that “ cleaned 
rice” (dutiable at 2J cents per pound), purposely coated with meal, has 
been imported and classified as “uncleaned rice” at 1J cents per pound. 

2. Not within my knowledge. 

3. Actual measurements are made as often as practicable, or as often 
as it is deemed necessary. 

4. I know of no such evidence. 

5. I have never had an occasion or an opportunity to learn anything 
of this work or of the men who perform it. 

6. I can reply to this question only that I know that a large number 
of such suits are now pending; that a suit is not reached or tried from 
one to three years after it is begun; and that in my judgment anew 
tribunal is needed, as the present system is not sufficient. 

7. Laces, embroideries, green and dried fruits, glass, et al. 

8. The failure was due to both ignorance and dishonesty of Treasury 
officials and dishonesty of importers. Some mistakes must be made 
aud some improper classifications will be made while man’s judgment 
remains fallible. But there is evidence that some of the highest officials 
in the appraiser’s department under the last administration did know 
of and promote that failure. 

9. There is such evidence against ex-Appraiser Ketchum, but I have 
never heard the slightest charge of any kind against Appraiser Mc¬ 
Mullen. Against the former are the statements of both consuls aud 
special agents. 

10. The place, time, and standard seem to be fixed, yet confusion 
arises in a great many ways. In a great many cases it is not clear 
whether the value of the case, covering, can, card, &c., which contains 
the goods should be included in their dutiable value or not. 

11. I have no basis upon which to make such an estimate. 

12. The examiner is chiefly responsible. His salary is from $800 to 
$2,500 per annum. Yet questions of classification and value in dispute 
are submitted every day to the appraiser, aud his decision, of course, is 
accepted by the examiner; so many of the most important classifica¬ 
tions and appraisements are really the work of the appraiser himself. 

13. Not within my knowledge. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


717 


15. The fact that there is an entirely different and much superior man 
now at the head of the appraiser’s department. Appraiser McMullen 
had been an examiner in this department thirty-three years, and knew 
his men. All whom 1 suspected of being dishonest were promptly dis¬ 
missed. 

16. Yes. I think it could be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. I do not think so. 

18. It would not. Very little weight is attached to a consular certifi¬ 
cate. An invoice with a certificate is examined and verified just as 
carefully as one with no certificate attached. 

19. I do not think it would be expedient. 

20. Wools are divided into three classes, yet the first and second 
classes pay the same rate of duty. There has been but one change in 
the wool tariff since 1867. By the law of 1867 wools of the first and 
second classes worth less than 32 cents per pound paid 10 cents per 
pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; worth more than 32 cents per 
pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. By the law of 
1883 wools of the first and second classes worth less than 30 cents per 
pound pay 10 cents per pound; worth more than 30 cents per pound, 
12 cents per pound. These two classes include all wools that compete 
with those grown in the United States. The reduction of the tariff in 
1883 seems to have reduced the price of native wools in almost exactly 
the same degree. 

21. I do not believe the custom is general. Foreigners are apt to 
offer fees without solicitation, from force of habit. I believe that fees 
are sometimes accepted, but I do not know that they are ever de¬ 
manded. 

22. I do not think so. 

23. I am unable to say. 

Very respectfully, 

JOHN Q. MITCHELL, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


718 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 141. 


E. W. PRATT—Appointed Inspector, Chicago, July 6, 1870; Watchman July 29, 
1873; Messenger, New York, June 30, 1875; Sampler January 4, 1870, and February 
7, 1884; Examiner June 30, 1875. 


Port of New York, 
Appraiser’s Office , October 7, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your circular letter marked “strictly confidential,” 
without date, in which you request replies to twenty-four (24) ques¬ 
tions asked therein, I have the honor to state that from the nature of 
my duties as an examiner of damaged merchandise, and never having 
had any experience in the examination of merchandise for value or duty, 
there is a number of questions in the said letter with which I am not 
familiar. 

12. I would say that, in my judgement, an examiner is chiefly re¬ 
sponsible for a false return of value, unless the return was ordered by 
the appraiser or assistant appraiser, in which case the officer making 
the order should be held responsible. Examiners’ salaries range from 
$1,400 to $2,500 per annum. The appraiser is, in my opinion, more than 
one who ordinarily and in fact certifies to the collector the values fixed 
and reported to him by examiners and deputy appraisers. 

16. 1 would say that I am in favor of a change from ad valorem to 
specific rates, and I also think that such change would have a tendency 
to diminish bribery, if it be a fact that bribery exists. Although I am 
not familiar with the examination of textile fabrics, I should say that 
specific rates could be applied to the same. 

19. 1 would say that it would be safe, useful, and more just both to 
the Government’s and importer’s interest if the executive or the judicial 
powers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of 
the dutiable value which is to be the basis on which the collector is to 
levy ad valorem rates. 

21. If the practice of paying money to customs inspectors by arriving 
passengers prevails at this or any other port, I should say that it could 
be prevented by the removal of the inspector receiving money, and the 
prosecution of the passenger paying the same. 

I would add that any information in relation to my duties as an ex¬ 
aminer of damaged merchandise that l can give you will be cheerfully 
given. 

Very respectfully, 


E. W. PRATT, 


. Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). G. 


No. 142. 

HOWARD C. GILL—Appointed Sampler, New York, December 24, 1878; Examiner 

July 9, 1885. 

Port of New 7ork, 
Appraiser’s Office , October 5, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the confidential 
circular mailed to me the 27th ultimo; also my own dereliction in re¬ 
plying thereto. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 719 


I respectfully submit that the delay has been caused by the impres¬ 
sion of doubt as to my qualifications for rendering pertinent answers. 

1. I submit my inability to reply thereto. 

2. I assert that there is satisfactory evidence to me that the full 
amount of duties prescribed by Congress have not been collected from 
imported sugars, which pay specific rates. 

Evidence which would convince me might, however, lack the force 
necessary to establish a judicial determination, while the lapse of time 
and treachery of memory would involve investigations in many uncer¬ 
tainties. 


4. My experience and observation point toward conduct that cannot 
be justified in the matter of sampling sugars in the past. 

It would be extremely difficult now to show whether there was cause 
for censure of laxity or for accusation of collusion, but I am happy to 
inform the honorable Secretary that the abuses above intimated have 
been superseded by efficient and trustworthy work. 

It has been possible in the past to so sample a sugar as to make its 
percentage determination throw it into a lower grade of classification 
when the qualities came near to dividing lines between the specified 
rates. Numerous devices contributed to this result, but it would be 
exceedingly difficult to discriminate criminal intent from carelessness, or 
at least to establish criminal intent. 

As an illustration: If a sampler should “wipe out” a “trier” and 
leave a little water in it at the time of taking a new trial, the said new 
trial would be relatively decreased in saccharine strength. All of these 
matters I have from time to time explained to my superior officers and 
the special agents. 

I am happy to inform the honorable Secretary that I have observed 
these imperfect modes disappear under the new administration. 

12. I respectfully submit that the examiner is chiefly responsible, 
provided the sample furnished him is a genuine representation of the 
merchandise. 

There are times, however, when the merchant or his representative 
appeals to the assistant appraiser or appraiser, and they overrule his 
judgment. Then I hold that the responsibility is transferred from him to 
his superior officer. 

I think the foregoing presentation includes about all the writer could 
advance which would be pertinent to the inquiries. 

Hoping that the thoughts will be suggestive to the honorable Secre¬ 
tary, and that I shall be excused from tardiness, 

I remain, verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

HOWARD C. GILL, 

Sugar Examiner , Eighth Division , Appraiser’s Department , 

New York City. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of Treasury. 


720 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 143. 

S. SEABURY GUION—Appointed Sampler, New York, April 1, 1871; Examiner July 

14, 1883. 


Port of New York, 
Appraisers Office , October G, 1885. 

Sir: In reply to the circular marked “ strictly confidential,” and con¬ 
taining twenty-four questions relative to the administration of customs 
laws, which was received from the Treasury Department, I respectfully 
submit the following: 

1 to 11. I am unable to give you any valuable information. 

12. The examiner “is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual 
course of business, for a false return of value to the collector.” The 
salaries of examiners range from $1,800 to $2,500, the latter being the 
maximum amount allowed to said officer. It is impossible for either 
the appraiser or assistant appraiser to examine merchandise and fix its 
value, but of course they are consulted by the examiner. 

13. I have no information on this point. 

14 and 15. If improper values and unlawful rates of duty have been 
habitually reported to the collector, the fault may fairly be charged to 
the examiner reporting them. I know of no remedy for this except the 
employment of honest examiners. 

16. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty would 
be a benefit to the revenue. 

17. I do not think so. 

18. It is not probable that consular agents could verify the correctness 
of invoice values, and their present action is of no material benefit. 

19. I am of the opinion that it would not be safe, even if it were pos¬ 
sible, which I very much doubt, to increase the number of officers hav¬ 
ing jurisdiction over dutiable values. 

20 to 24. I have no knowledge upon which I could base information of 
any kind. 

Very respectfully, 


S. SEABURY GUION, 


Examiner Metal and Hardware. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 144. 

A. L. SMITH—Appointed Examiner April 6, 1861. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office , September 28, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to question No. 10, I would respectfully state that 
there has been, during the past two years, much doubt, confusion, and 
conflict of opinion in respect to the elements to be ascertained in order 
to fix and declare the dutiable value. This state of things was not due 
so much to the want of definiteness in the terms of the law as to the 
various and conflicting interpretations made by the Attorney-General 
and the Treasury officials. A still greater misunderstanding of the law 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


721 


(relating to “changes”) exists among importers, some of whom have even 
claimed that such goods as canned vegetables, peas, asparagus, beans, 
&c., should pay duty only upon the cost of the goods as they come from 
the garden. Such invoices are often entered, deducting the cost of 
cases, packages, tin cans, labels, &c., with all transportation and 
shipping charges. I need not say that no such invoice has been passed 
by me without a corresponding addition to make value. The general 
misunderstanding of the law shows the absolute necessity of some 
farther legislation which should limit the non dutiable elements to the 
simple outer package, cask, case, or bag, &o. 

12. As the examiner is the expert whose business it is to ascertain and 
report the values of goods in his particular line, he is necessarily pri¬ 
marily responsible for any undervaluation which may escape his scrutiny. 
In relation to the appraisership, I would say that in my judgment the 
position is one which furnishes full scope for all the powers and ener¬ 
gies of the clearest-headed business man, and is one which requires 
qualifications which could hardly be acquired except through long serv¬ 
ice in the subordinate offices of this department. One appointed from 
any outside business sphere would, for some time at least, occupy the 
position implied in the last two lines of question No. 12. 

1G. Specific duties are preferable in all cases where they can be equit¬ 
ably applied. As within my own experience, I would mention two in¬ 
stances in which they can be equitably and advantageously applied, 
viz: on fire crackers, which now pay an ad valorem duty of 100 per cent., 
and grapes, which pay 20 per cent. Fire crackers are almost entirely 
included within twelve or fourteen regular sizes, measuring from 1 inch 
to 14 inches in length. There would be no difficulty in making a scale 
of specific duties (say at a given rate per 100 crackers of each size) 
which would yield an equivalent to any percentage which may be 
thought desirable. There have been constant disputes iu relation to 
the elements constituting the dutiable value of these goods, and I know 
of none which more imperatively demand a specific duty. 

Grapes are imported in great quantities in barrels, half-barrels, 
quarter barrels, and cases, varying from 12 to 75 pounds net. They 
are bought in the country of production by weight , and the bags, cases, 
&c., are held not to he dutiable , while more than one-half the crop of 
Spain is consigned to agents in Liverpool, &c., and is then purchased 
by shippers to America by the package, including casks , cfic., cfic., and 
therefore duty is exacted upon the whole cost, including those pack¬ 
ages. Much complaint is made that this is a discrimination against 
the English market. As most of these goods are consigned , it is a matter 
of great difficulty to prove market values when they are the subject of 
reappraisement. A specific duty of so much per pound would be equally 
fair for the Government and for the importer, and acceptable to all. 
The seeming inconsistency of making packages of the same goods dutia¬ 
ble in one market and not dutiable in another will also be avoided. 

18. It would not, iu my judgment, be practicable for American con¬ 
sular agents to personally examine any considerable portion of the ar¬ 
ticles shipped from foreign ports, and to verify the correctness of in¬ 
voice values, and it is not probable that any foreign Government would 
consent to any such arrangement. An hour’s delay would often prove 
ruinous to the most important enterprises, by detaining goods until the 
next steamer was ready to sail, when the opportunity for a successful 
operation would be lost. 

46 A 


722 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In answer to the questions relating to 
customs officers, &c., I would state that 
of any such cases. 

Very respectfully, yours, 


undervaluations sanctioned by 
I have no personal knowledge 


A. L. SMITH, 
j Examiner Tenth Division. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 145. 


E. HONEYWELL—Appointed Examiner July 14, 1883. 

Port of New York, 
Appraisers Office , October 7 1885. 

Sir: In compliance with your desire, please find appended answers 
to questions contained in confidential communication. 

Very respectfully, 

E. HONEYWELL, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Danl. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


1 to 6. I have no knowledge relative to these questions. 

7. The only article coming under my examination on which the de¬ 
partment has failed to collect the full amount of duty is enamel. By 
Department instructions I am compelled to classify it under paragraph 
908 as u parts of watches, 25 per cent.” while it should be classified 
under paragraph 557 as manufactures of glass, 45 per cent., as it was 
before this decision. 

8. I do not know. 

9. I have no knowledge relative to this question. 

10. I know of no confusion, or doubt, or conflict of opinion respecting 
the elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare the dutiable 
value; and in my opinion the time, place, and standard to be applied 
are already defined in the statutes. 

11. I should think not. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly'responsible for a false re¬ 
turn of value to the collector. The salary of an examiner is from $1,800 
to $2,500 per year. The appraiser is ordinarily one who simply certifies 
to the collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiners 
and deputy appraisers. 

13. 14, and 15. I have no knowledge relative to these questions. 

16. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates would benefit 
the revenue and help diminish a tendency to bribery, if any exists, pro¬ 
vided the existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the future. 

Concerning textile fabrics, I am not sufficiently familiar to express 
an opinion. 

17. I have no knowledge relative to this question. 

18. It would not be practicable for an American consular agent to 
personally examine articles to be shipped from thence to American 
ports, and to verify the correctness of invoiced values. I have no 
knowledge relative to the balance of this question. 

19. I would not. 

20. 21, 22, 23, and 24. I have no knowledge relative to these questions. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


723 


No. 146. 


JOHN P. GREEN—Appointed Examiner December 23, 1869. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser's Office, October 3, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your circular, containing twenty-four questions, I 
would respectfully answer: 

1. As far as 1 am able to say, all duties levied have been collected. 

2. I know of none. 

-3. By actual measurement, when required. 

4. I have no knowledge of collusion between importers and Govern¬ 
ment officers. 

5. I know of none. 

6. I am unable to give any opiuiou as to the law or facts asked for. 

7. 8, and 9. I am unable to do so. 

10. There has been, undoubtedly, conflict of opinion in fixing dutiable 
value, especially as to items of charges. The rule to be applied is al¬ 
ready defined by the statutes, in my opinion. 

11. I am unable to answer correctly ; but I think that the information 
could be given by the collector or appraiser. 

12. The examiners, $1,800 to $2,500. The appraiser certifies to the 
values given by the examiner and assistant appraiser. 

13. I know of none. 

14. I have no evidence of such reports. 

15. I am not able to say. 

16. As a matter of opinion I* think I would, but specific rates would 
not be practicable for ail textile fabrics and many other articles. I re¬ 
fer you to my schedules sent to the appraiser. 

17. Not to my knowledge. 

18. 1 am unable to answer. 

19. In my opinion the present law is the wisest and all-sufficient. 

20. I am notable to give the information required. 

21. There is such a belief; but it is also believed that it can be pre¬ 
vented by a rigid enforcement of the laws and instructions of the 
Treasury Department in its letter to the United States attorney at New 
York, recently given. 

22. I have no information on the subject. 

23. I have no evidence that the revenue law has not been enforced at 
New York or at other Atlantic ports. 

24. I have no knowledge of any having been made. 

All of which is submitted. 

Very respectfully, 

JOHN P. GREEN, 
Examiner of Marble. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary Treasury . 


724 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 147. 


WM. PIANCOCIy CLARK—Appointed Night-Inspector March 8, 1875; Clerk and 
Verifier May 30, 1880; Opener and Packer March 24, 1883; Examiner June 30,1883. 


Port of New York, 
Appraiser’s Office , October 12, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your printed letter, marked u strictly confidential,” 
I have the honor to reply to its series of (24) questions relating to the 
“condition and administration of the customs service at the prominent 
ports of entry in these United States,” being the result of eight (8) 
years 7 experience in the surveyor’s, collector’s, and appraiser’s depart¬ 
ments at the port of New York. 

With assurances of respect, 

Your most obedient servant, 

WM. HANCOCK CLARK, 

Examiner Fourth Division. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


1. “Keeping in mind the distinction between rates of duty and dutia¬ 
ble values,” I have no evidence showing that the rates have not been 
lawfully levied and collected. 

2. That my line of merchandise comprises but one kind of goods pay¬ 
ing “specific rates of duty”: Cotton bagging, under 7 cents per square 
yard, which pays a duty of 14 cents per pound. Have no evidence that 
the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected. 

3. In the course of custom-house business the widths of the textile 
fabrics are fully ascertained and reported; and where any reason pre¬ 
sents itself for believing the invoiced lineal measurement to be incor¬ 
rect, that also is accurately ascertained by the use of the yard, meter, 
or aune sticks (supplied by the Government), and specially reported 
to fix values. 

4. Have no evidence of collusion between persons making entry of 
several packages of similar goods on one invoice, and the entry clerk or 
deputy collector to send to the appraiser for examination a bogus or false 
package as a fair example of one in every ten. Understand, however, 
that ex deputy Collector Des Anges, together with his two confederates, 
an entry clerk and an inspector of customs, were caught so doing, and 
upon conviction are now serving their respective terms of imprisonment 
at the Sing Sing prison. 

5. Have no evidence of false or incompetent or inadequate weighing 
or measurements on the wharves. 

6. Concerning rates of duty and differences between importers and 
collectors growing out of decisions by the latter, and the Treasury, 
which have resulted in suits, I believe the existing law does need 
amendment, and a careful perusal of Treasury decisions emanating 
from the pen or dictation of (“II. B. J.”) H. B. James (until very re¬ 
cently), chief of customs division, and of H. F. French, Assistant Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury, at Washington, will convince you that decisions 
have been reversed many times to appease certain political lawyers and 
leaders whose influences have been more potent in the Treasury De¬ 
partment than the non-officials could realize, the reversal of one of 
their decisions alone last year on “ colored cottons” being the cause of 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 725 


great official scandal, as also the return to the fourth division here of 
no less than six thousand (G,000) invoices, which had to be reclassified 
by Examiner Dutcher under protest. The existing law concerning 
payment of interest as part of the damages and costs in “ collectors’ 
suits” are equitable enough, but many unnecessary delays might be 
avoided by the establishment of a system which shall provide for a 
more prompt termination of such litigation. A separate tribunal, well 
equipped, would reform both litigants and litigation, and be the direct 
means of prodigious saving of clerical labor to examiners, until now an 
noyed by the “ reconsiderations ” aud “reclassifications” of invoices. 

Have no knowledge as to the number, classification, or status of suits 
now pending at the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Balti¬ 
more. 

7. Am not sufficiently posted as to the result of the recent investiga¬ 
tions of the Department to give “proof conclusively” that duties have 
not been duly levied nor collected; but am satisfied in my own mind 
that the suggestions given promptly and fearlesly to the" “Tichenor 
Commission” by me last spring have produced great results, so far as 
the “damage bureau” aud undervaluation of imported china, bric-a- 
brac, furs, &e., were concerned, because the offending officials have 
been summarily removed; ipso facto , their methods and confederates 
are known, thoughafew in the “ damage bureau” appear tohave escaped 
scrutiny. 

8. The failure came about by the cowardice as well as the dishonesty 
of some Treasury officials and a well defined purpose on the partof others 
to cover up the methods and shortcomings of certain representatives 
of Republican city district asociations, where incompetency or habitual 
drunkenness prevailed. For instance : Three years ago Special Agent 
Ayer went to the Hoffman House one evening without any “badge of 
office” or seizure documents to capture some “ oil paintings,” presumably 
smuggled by (a passenger per Liverpool steamer) a guest there, whose 
arrest was also expected to follow. As a natural consequence Ayer was 
himself arrested, taken to jail, and detained therein until Appraiser J. 
Q. Howard was summoned to identify and rescue “a supposed confi¬ 
dence man.” That was incompetency. Again, Special Agent Brackett 
was repeatedly informed by me of the appointments, assignments, de¬ 
tails, or transfers for duty, all illegal, in defiance of all “civil service 
laws and regulations,” by United States Appraiser Ketchum and (his 
willing tool) Assistant Appraiser Fowler. Indeed, I showed him a full 
and complete list of their names ; yet he reported nothing, because he 
said “Ketchum was a good fellow, a neighbor of his in Harlem,” &c. 
As regards the “incompetent” and drunken officials, there are many 
at the “United States public stores” (the most glaringexampleof whom 
is Watchman Thomas II O’Neil) who have been reported, investigated, 
and suspended frequently (by Chief Clerk James H. Clark) for being 
drunk, disorderly, abusive, absence without leave, &c. These creatures, 
who have, nor could pass “civil-service examinations,” still remain to tor¬ 
ture many of us who havepassed the lawful examinations, aspire to elevate 
the service, and have the manliness to complain when insulted by them 
so grossly, as the “press copy report” (written Appraiser Ketchum by 
me in the matter of Messenger Hess) herewith attached will fully sub- 


726 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


stantiate. The Republican office-holders within the portals of the pub¬ 
lic stores here are so banded together that few reforms can be carried 
out with success until new chiefs of division are selected with courage 
to suggest the investigation and removal of all unworthy officials, 
whether on terms of intimacy with them or not. My own devotion to 
official cares, together with their knowledge of my being an ex-Confed- 
erate officer, has militated greatly against my promotion officially at the 
hands of brother officers here. They think an “ex-Oonfederate” has no 
right here, no matter how many civil-service examinations he passes, or 
how worthy he may be for a higher sphere of duty, and have resorted 
to many cowardly means to prevent my promotion now, when urged 
for promotion “to be an assistant appraiser,” or “to be deputy collector 
in charge of the public stores.” 

9. Sufficient evidence will be adduced (by perusal of the report of the 
recent “Tichenor investigation committee” at this port) from the testi¬ 
mony of the assistant appraisers and examiners alone to satisfy you that 
United States Appraiser Ketchum caused to be changed and reported 
false dutiable values to suit certain importers whenever he deemed it safe 
to do so, and raised invoices to a penalty to afford certain special Treasury 
agents to squeeze money out of importers to be divided with somebody. 
See evidence in case of “The United States v. Watson & Gird wood,” 
tried here last summer. Note also the fact that Assistant District At¬ 
torney Clark called no witnesses from the appraisers’ stores, though 
Assistant Appraiser Birdsall and Examiner Dutcher were known to be 
in court every day during said trial; and the most important factors. 
Concerning evidence furnished the appraiser by special agents of Treas¬ 
ury, however earnest they may be, so very few special agents are “ex¬ 
perts ” in any class or line of merchandise that eight years’ experience 
convinces me that they are constantly imposed upon by the designs of 
some and the prejudices of other interested parties. 

The statements of “ informers” are chiefly unreliable, because generally 
emanating from a rival motive. Call for the record of the business ex¬ 
perience of the special agents, and you will find that most of them rep¬ 
resent “journalism” (as newspaper men now classify their busiqess) 
rather than any practical or expert knowledge of any line of goods 
whatsoever. The same applies to consular agents (where I have per¬ 
sonally known them in the East and West Indies, Brazil, Africa, India, 
and China, as well as England and France), who are usually the political 
favorites of the “ party in power,”—appointed by apportionment amongst 
the various States representing the issues of the period—non-sufficiently 
long enough resident abroad to be a safe adviser for tariff direction. 

10. I can recall no “confusion or doubt or conflict of opiniou in our 
department respecting any of the elements to be ascertained in order to 
fix and declare dutiable value,” unless it be in the matter of “ charges,” 
where a diversity of opinion has ever existed betwixt importers and ex¬ 
aminers (known upon the face of invoices passing through my hands as 
charges for packing, screwing, and marking), and this matter of 
“charges” has been provided for by your very recent order directing a 
line of action to be adopted, so lucid in its rulings that its legality can 
ouly be determined by appeal to the Federal courts. 

11. I can make no safe average estimate of the percentage of under¬ 
valuations in any year or series of years. The invoices might be iden¬ 
tified by some consuls, who, in such manufacturing ports as Dundee, 
keep on file, for comparison and reference, this Price Current and Trade 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


727 


Report (copy herewith attached), showing reliably the quantity, quality, 
and price of their line of merchandise for every week in the year; but 
that would require an expert from the appraiser’s department, a special 
agent from the collector’s office, and tedious research, coupled with con¬ 
siderable expense. 

12. The examiner of merchandise is primarily and chiefly responsible 
for a false return of value to the collector, being’ the only officer who, 
in the presence of his opener and packers, personally inspects the mer¬ 
chandise. The salaries of the examiners range from $1,800 to $2,500. 
The appraiser or assistant appraisers are rarely, if ever, experts, their 
duties being clearly of an executive character, and their reports of values 
a reflex of the examiner; however, when civil-service principles are per¬ 
fected so as to promote men of mark and merit from among the exam¬ 
iners with salaries more commensurate with their abilities and respon¬ 
sibilities, the department may be congratulated upon having many ex¬ 
perts among the ten assistant appraisers in the near future, as several 
examiners are now being urged for promotion fully competent to edu¬ 
cate incoming others. 

13. 1 know of no evidence against any Government consular officials 
conniving at presentation to appraisers of false evidence of foreign 
values. 

14. False values have not been habitually and systematically re¬ 
ported Co collectors by appraising officers, except in a few isolated cases. 
Failure under the past administration of the Treasury to collect full 
duty has been caused more by the appointment to office of illiterate, 
incompetent men than dishonesty. For instance, there are officers here 
drawing salaries of $2,000 a year who, outside of this building, cannot 
earn $480, and clerks drawing $1,600 salaries, or a little less, who could 
get no mercantile employment, unless it be that of messenger or porter 
at $40 to $60 per month. I know of no officer who is the recipient of 
bribe-money to get false reports, but have reported to their superiors 
the names of several “ damage examiners” who are (or have been until 
very recently) associating with certain “ damage brokers,” whose repu¬ 
tation for corrupt practices is established, smoking tiieir cigars, drink¬ 
ing high wines, and partaking of their hospitalities in even more dis¬ 
graceful ways. 

15. I think corrupt and venal influences will prevail, more or less, in 
proportion to man’s temptations to deviate from the “ straight and nar¬ 
row path”; therefore, would suggest to the honorable Secretary the 
propriety of closing (per “special circular order”) the doors of the 
examiners and assistant appraisers to all save proper Department 
officials, permitting no “custom house brokers” in the public stores 
to converse with examiners, their clerks, or openers, and packers, ex¬ 
cept in the presence of the appraiser or deputy appraiser, appointed 
to look after just such “pests,” and the chief clerk at the appraisers’ 
ante-room, and that said “special order” shall direct and require the 
examination of all packages in their actual turn, as the “receiving” 
and “invoice registers” show to the collector and appraiser that said 
packages have entered the public stores. Our work would be done 
quicker, the chance for bribery, or expediting packages for favorite 
brokers ended, and the examiners, their verifiers, and openers and 
packers given a fairer chance to perform what is expected of them un¬ 
der the new order of things. The extension or enlargement of the 
“public store restaurant,” too, is desirable, accompanied by a rule: 


728 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


‘That none, save assistant appraisers and examiners, shall leave the 
building for lunch, or dinner, between 9 a. in. and 4 p. in., without the 
permission of their division chief.” That prevents the brokers from 
waylaying or questioning the openers and packers outside the build¬ 
ing, as they do now, as to their packages. 

16. A change from “ad valorem ” to “specific duty ” would benefit the 
revenue, and tend to diminish bribery; yet the same temptations will 
exist: fraudulent reports of weights and measurements, which will de¬ 
termine all the values; nevertheless, it is fair to presume that from 25 
to 33 per cent, more duty will accrue to the Government by the adoption 
of “specific duty.” The list of textile fabrics is so very large and their 
character so varied, that it will be difficult to apply specific duty to sev¬ 
eral of them. 

So far as my “line of merchandise” is concerned—jute bags, jute bag¬ 
ging, jute burlaps, &c.—a specific duty by the pound can readily be ap¬ 
plied, because baled and coarse in its warp; the finer the fabric, I fancy, 
the harder the application of “specific duty” with due justice to both 
importer and consumer. 

17. There is no reason to believe false reports by appraisers have been 
increased by repeal (in 1874) of the “moiety law 7 ,” and the revenue is 
better protected now than in the year 1863. 

18. Having visited many foreign consulates during my service in the 
United States Navy, am convinced that invoice values can only be ver¬ 
ified by American experts, and the true invoiced values only be ob¬ 
tained from English-speaking districts. All others will encounter hun¬ 
dreds of obstacles. 

Our “Consul’s fees” in England for certifying invoices of value (large 
or small) amount to fifteen shillings: ten shillings and sixpence to con¬ 
sul, and four shillings and sixpence to the notary fees. 

19. All appraising officers should be “men above price,” of high 
character, commissioned for their experience, and reliability in kuowl- 
edge of the dutiable value in their respective line of goods, bearing 
forever in mind “that all articles imported ohall be valued at the cur¬ 
rent or actual market value, or wholesale price thereof in foreign mar¬ 
ket, at the period of exportation to the United States,” in obedience to 
the law 7 enacted by Congress on or about March 3,1883. Such experts 
should be held personally responsible for their valuations to insure 
greater scrutiny in appraisement. It would neither be safe, useful, nor 
just to importers to extend the executive or judicial powers for inter¬ 
ference with the ascertainment of dutiable values, which may be the 
basis on which the collector is to lay ad valorem rates. 

20. Have had no experience whatever in the examination, or classi¬ 
fication of w^ool. 

21. By reference to the Department Blue Book, you will see that my 
first appointment in customs service (8 years ago) was that of inspector 
of customs, and served several months at the old Barge Office, in State 
street. At that time there were about eight hundred (800) inspectors 
(under Surveyor Graham and Acting Deputy Surveyor Kibbe), the 
majority of whom being men of the low est type of what are classified as 
pot house politicians, men w 7 hose every thought and word was of the 
district which they claimed to own and carry in their vest pocket. To 
be detailed for “steamer duty” was their ecstacy, because there they 
could get a stake (as they termed it) from a “ high flyer,” get free of 
ail expense their meals (for the five or six days required for the dis- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


729 


charge of her cargo, and sailing from this harbor) on said steamer, to 
gether with a bottle of wine, or other liquors, at each meal. Their wives 
and sweethearts would dine there, too, and disgraceful sprees fre¬ 
quently enacted. Thus you will discern the importance of elimination, 
by dismissal from Government service all such characters, many of 
whom could scarcely write their own names, replacing them by men of 
civil service record, education and worth. The bribery of inspectors 
can be best prevented by paying them better salaries. Salaries in con 
formity with those of examiners (from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum) 
forbidding them from taking any meals on board any vessel, and select¬ 
ing as surveyor some gentleman of unceptionable reputation for sterling 
integrity, with 3 deputy surveyors (with $5,000, $4,000, and $3,000 sala¬ 
ries) of similar grade, with authority “ to weed out the den ” by all honora¬ 
ble means, and speedily as the law will allow. The “ baggage-examin- 
ingscandal” will then die out, and officers wdl no longer blush to own 
that he is a “customs officer on duty at the port of New York.” 

22. On no goods, of my line, has the rate been carried by Congress 
beyond and above the line which the Government can surely protect. 

23. The failure of Treasury Department to enforce the revenue law in 
New York is true for similar reasons, I believe, to other large Atlantic 
ports. 

Respectfullv submitted. 

WM. HANCOCK CLAKKE, 

j Examiner Fourth Division. 


No. 148. 

J. W. JONES—Appointed Examiner December 16,1879. 

Port of New York, 
Appraiser’s Office , October 16, 1885. 

Sir: I beg leave to report in reply to your circular of inquiry as fol¬ 
lows : 

1 and 2. I know of none. 

3. I am not a textile fabric exporter. 

4. I know of none since the Des Auges cases in silks. 

5. I have no knowledge of any. 

6. I think they can be simplified and amended, and that customs 
courts of arbitration, or a special customs circuit judge appointed for 
courts in the Atlantic ports. 

7 and 8. The passage of professional wardrobes on the docks affords 
the greatest opportunity for frauds that I know of in the service. It could 
be stopped by ordering all lots of over $100 value to be examined in 
the public stores. It-comes about by “special permits” aud letters of 
“ courtesy.” 

9 and io. I think not. I know of none. I think the standard is well 
defined. 

11. I think not. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible for a false re¬ 
turn to the collector. The salaries are from $1,800 to $2,500, and they 
were formerly graded by time in the service and by expert knowledge. 

The appraiser is much more than is suggested in this question. He 
is an examiner in chief, before whom numerous interlocutory questions 



730 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


are often discussed and settled between examiners and assistant ap¬ 
praisers and brokers and merchants, before the examiners report, or 
classification is fully made. 

He is a legal judicial officer, constantly called upon to decide impor¬ 
tant questions in customs and mercantile law, after an examination of 
documents, witnesses, and.hearing of argument. 

He is an executive officer, directing and holding in subordination the 
divisions including hundreds of men, and he is directly responsible for 
the proper assessment of more revenue to the Government than any 
other single officer under the Government. 

His reports upon questions of customs law and the Law Merchant 
would make a respectable sized volume every year, and he should be 
held not inferior to the collector in dignity, importance, and salary. 

13, 14, 15. I know of no cases nor any evidences of any connivances 
or corruption of any officers or importers. 

16. I think it most certainly would. 

17. I do not know of any. 

18. I think it would be worth millions to the Government annually, 
and a great protection to honest importers, perfectly feasible, and no 
reasonable ground of complaint by foreign governments. 

19. I think it safer as it is, but would suggest that the full board of 
general appraisers hold court and fix values for all ports alike. 

20. 1 am not an expert wool examiner, but have had enough experi¬ 
ence to know that the duties should be much simplified, and, where 
possible, compound avoided. 

21. I think of late years very little of this has been done. Passen¬ 
gers often insist on men taking gratuities, and I have known it refused. 
The remedy most effectual is the landing of passengers at the Barge Office, 
where there is an open floor, abundance of light, and a full corps of officers 
and specials. The recent experiment proved that the “rotaries”— 
smugglers—deserted the Barge Office lines, preferring the darkness aud 
confusion of the freight-burdened docks of the exempted lines. 

22. I think not. The sharpest lawyers and brokers on both sides of 
the water are constantly employed to devise and concoct schemes to 
beat the revenue, and they will succeed no matter what changes you 
make, until as suggested in question 18. The Government furnishes 
the appraisers with official evidence, through the consuls, of the estab¬ 
lished foreign market values. 

23 and 24. I have no knowledge upon these questions upon which to 
found, an answer. 

Yours, truly, 


J. W. JONES, 
Examiner First Division. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

^Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. 0. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 731 


No. 149. 

LAWRENCE P. BOSTWICK—Appointed Examiner April 16, 1883. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street, October 2, 1885. 

Dear Sir : In reply to your circular containing questions in refer¬ 
ence to the appraisement of values and irregularities in snch appraise¬ 
ments, I have the honor herewith to respond. My duties as damage 
examiner have not brought me in contact either with the appraisers of 
values or the methods employed by them in their examinations. I do 
not consider myself competent, therefore, to give intelligent and satis¬ 
factory answers to most of the questions propounded. I have no evi¬ 
dence of any irregularities in the customs departments, and have learned 
of them only through newspaper reports. 

As to Question No. 12, I hold the examiner is primarily and chiefly 
responsible for an incorrect or false return of value to the collector, 
either through ignorance or otherwise. I also consider that the ap¬ 
praiser is more, ordinarily and in fact, than one who officially certifies 
to the collector the values fixed and reported to him by examiners and 
deputy appraisers. 

If I should attempt a reply to the remainder of the questions, (which 
I have carefully read,) I would be only able to present personal opin¬ 
ions, and without any thorough acquaintance or knowledge of the sub¬ 
jects discussed. 

Any information in regard to the duties of damage examiners, and 
their methods of examination, I can give very cheerfully and to the full 
extent of my ability. 

I have the honor to subscribe myself yours, respectfully, 

L. P. BOSTWICK, 

Damage Examiner , First Division , Appraiser’s Department . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 150. 

A. D. FENTON—Appointed Examiner May 13, 1878. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 3, 1885. 

Sir: I respectfully submit the following as replies to the various 
questions contained in your printed communication, without date, but 
received by me some time during September of this year: 

Question 1.—I know of no evidence that the rates of duty and dutiable 
values have not been levied and collected as the law prescribed. 

Question 2.—I know of no evidence that on articles which the law 
says shall pay purely specific rates, without reference to values, the full 
amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected. 

Question 3.—The usual manner of verifying invoiced measurements 
of textile fabrics is by actual measurement of a sufficient number of 
pieces to be satisfied of the correctness of the whole. 

Question 4.—I know of no evidence of collusion between the persons 
making entry of several packages of similar goods on the same invoice, 



732 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and the entry clerk or deputy collector, to send to the appraiser for 
examination, a bogus or false package as a fair example of one in every 
ten. 

Question 5.—I have no evidence, other than published reports, of 
false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves; 
my duties are confined exclusively to examining goods in the third 
division of the appraiser’s department. 

Question 6.—I do not feel competent to answer as to whether the ex¬ 
isting law needs amendment in respect to the differences growing out 
of decisions by the collector and the Treasury which have resulted in 
suits. As to how many collectors’ suits are now pending in Boston, 
New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, I have no means of ascertain¬ 
ing ; nor do I know, or have I the means of ascertaining, how many suits 
are pending, or any other particulars asked for in this question. The 
question as to devising a plan by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor of 
the Treasury, the district attorneys and judges, by which these suits 
can be more promptly disposed of, &c., does not come within my province 
to answer; I could only give an intelligent answer after spending a 
long time in studying the subject, and even then the law officers of the 
Government would be much more competent to decide upon the vari¬ 
ous points involved. 

Question 7.—I know of no class of articles on which the recent inves¬ 
tigations have shown that the Treasury Department has failed to collect 
the entire and full amount of duty the law prescribed, unless, in the light 
of the action of experts employed by the Government at the different 
European markets, they have made values sometimes considerably in 
excess of established prices here and sometimes considerably below such 
prices. 

Question 8.—If there has been any failure on the part of the Treasury 
officials, it has arisen from the lack of knowledge on their part of the 
foreign values. I have never discovered the slightest deviation from 
official integrity on the part of any official in this division. Of course, 
I cannot give an opinion as to the officials in any other division of this 
department, as I scarcely ever come in contact with them, but I know 
of no instances of official corruption, except such as have been made 
public through the courts or otherwise; and of such cases I do not feel 
competent to give an oxfinion, not having been cognizant of the facts at 
the time. 

Question 9.—I have no evidence that the appraiser has reported to the 
collector false dutiable values; therefore no further reply is needed on 
that i>oint. 

Question 10.—The only question for the appraiser to solve, it seems to 
me, is the value of the merchandise at the time and place of shipment. 
This has always been the aim in this division, and, I think, as far as it 
has been possible to ascertain that value, it has been strictly adhered to. 

Question 11.—I do not think it possible that any system of undervalua¬ 
tion has ever been followed by any official in this division, and, if such 
has been the case, I do not see how it can be ascertained and the articles 
or invoices identified. 

Question 12.—Already replied to. 

Question 13. —I am not aware of any evidence that Government officials 
in the consular department or elsewhere have assisted, or consented to, 
or connived at, the presentation to appraisers of false evidence of foreign 
values. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 733 


Question 14.—If, under the previous administration of the Treasury, 
false values have been habitually and systematically reported to the sev¬ 
eral collectors, &c., I would reply I have no evidence of dishonesty on 
the part of Treasury or customs officials. If money Inis been paid to 
American officials to get false reports of dutiable values, I have not been 
aware of it. I know of no corruption fund having been raised and dis¬ 
bursed. 

Question 15.—If false valuations have*come of bribery or venality, I 
know of no reason to think that such corrupt and venal influences are 
not now brought to bear, or that they will,not be successful in the future 
as in the past. 

Question 16.—I cannot answer this question in a proper manner with¬ 
out giving the subject much more consideration than I have the time to 
devote to it. I think it would be very difficult indeed to apply specific 
rates to all texile fabrics, and at the same time* to fairly protect our own 
manufacturers. 

Question 17.—Not having been in Government‘employ previous to 
1878, I am not able to answer the question. 

Question 18. —The questions embraced in this section seem to be so far 
out of my jurisdiction that I could give no satisfactory replies further 
than my mere opinion, and I do not consider that as being of much 
value. 

Question 19.—I do not know; should think not. 

Question 20.—This question can only be properly answered by the 
officials of the sixth division of this department. 

Question 21.—I have no knowledge as to the experience of arriving 
passengers in paying money to customs inspectors of baggage, either to 
prevent, facilitate, or hasten an examination of luggage to ascertain 
whether or not it contains dutiable articles. If such a practice exists, 
I am not sufficiently familiar with the working of that branch of the 
business to be able to suggest a suitable remedy. 

Question 22.—I should say, if the evidence shows that the Treasury 
Department has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law, the 
rate, in my opinion, has not been carried by Congress beyond and above 
the line which the Government can surely protect. 

Question 23.—I have no means of knowing what has been true of other 
large Atlantic ports, 

Question 24.—In answer to this question, I would respectfully refer 
you to the law department of the appraiser’s department. 

I would say my duties have so constantly and fully occupied my time 
and attention since the receipt of your series of questions that I have 
not been able to reply sooner, and 1 am fully aware of the incomplete¬ 
ness, and, I fear, otherwise unsatisfactory answers which are submitted. 

Very respectfully, &e., 

A. D. FENTON, 
Examiner, Third Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


734 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 151. 

HENRY M. RIDER—Appointed Clerk, New York, February 9, 1872 ; Examiner May 

5, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 3, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to your communication requesting replies 
to certain questions numbered* from 1 to 24, I respectfully submit the 
following answers to such questions as come within my knowledge— 
such as my position of examiner of machinery and metals enables me to 
answer: 

Question 1.—Keeping in mind the distinction between rates of duty 
and dutiable values, I know of no evidence that the former have not 
within the last few years been levied and collected as the law pre¬ 
scribed. 

Question 2.—I know of no satisfactory evidence that on articles which 
the law says shall pay purely specific rates, without reference to values, 
the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected. 

Question 10.—There has been, and is now, more or less confusion and 
doubt and conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s department respecting 
some of the elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare dutia¬ 
ble values. This grows out of the question as to what are and what are 
not dutiable charges. While the statutes, in the light of commercial 
usage, seem to fix with sufficient clearness the dividing line between 
dutiable and non clutiable charges, there are not a few who contend that 
charges under the law embrace everything except the bare merchandise 
itself, and that the cost of putting it in a marketable condition is not 
an element of dutiable value. To insure uniformity of action in fixing 
values for the purpose of assessing duty thereon, Congress should define 
the scope and meaning of the law on this subject. 

Question 12.—As between the examiner, assistant appraiser, and the 
appraiser, the examiner and assistant appraiser are primarily and chiefly 
responsible, in the usual course of business, for a false return to the col¬ 
lector. They examine the merchandise, and they are the only ones qual¬ 
ified to judge intelligently of their value. Fixing dutiable values is 
inseparable from the actual examination of the merchandise which those 
values represent. The salaries of examiners range from $1,200 to $2,500. 
The salary of assistant appraisers is $3,000. In the usual course of busi¬ 
ness, the appraiser officially certifies to the collector the values fixed and 
reported to him by the examiners and assistant appraisers. There are, 
on an average, about seven hundred invoices passing through the ap¬ 
praiser’s department daily; hence, it is readily seen that the appraiser 
is compelled to rely upon the examiners and assistant appraisers for a 
truthful report of values. The appraiser’s time is fully occupied in 
attending to the executive duties of his office, deciding questions of 
classification and ratqg of duty. 

Question 16.—I believe that a change from ad valorem to specific rates, 
where such a change is practicable, would be a benefit to the revenue 
and help to diminish a tendency to bribery. I do not believe, however, 
that a change to specific rates would be of any practicable benefit when 
such rates would be dependent on values. Specific, in that case, would 
be but another name for ad valorem. 

Question 18.—I am of the opinion that it would not be practicable in 
the large American consular districts, such as London, Paris,. Berlin, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 735 


&c., for American consular agents, no matter how numerous and alert, 
to personally examine articles to be shipped from thence to American 
ports, and to verify the correctness of invoice values. My experience 
v ith consular agents’ reports of values have not been of a nature to in¬ 
spire me with confidence in their reliability. The annoyance and vexa¬ 
tious delays that would follow such a departure would, in my opinion, 
give foreign governments just grounds for complaint. The fees exacted 
by our consuls in England for certifying invoices, even of small articles 
and of little value, are ten shillings and six pence sterling for each certi¬ 
fication. 


Question 19.—While it may seem that the appraising department pos¬ 
sesses unwarrantable arbitrary powers respecting dutiable values, it is, 
nevertheless, a power that cannot well be divided or abridged. I do 
not think it would be safe, or useful to the revenue, or just to importers, 
that the executive or the judicial powers have greater jurisdiction to in¬ 
terfere with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which is to be the 
basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates. As I said in 
answer to Question 12, fixing dutiable values is inseparable from actual 
examination of the merchandise which such values represent. 

Respectfully, 

H. M. EIDER, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 152. 

FREDERICK H. CLARK—Appointed Examiner May 16, 1872. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street, October 3, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to the printed communication forwarded 
by you under date of August 27, submitting a series of twenty-four 
questions relative to custom-house affairs in this and other prominent 
ports, I have the honor to present the following, seriatim: 

No. 1.—I know of no evidence. 

No. 2.—I know of no satisfactory evidence. 

No. 3.—Actual measurement by the yard-stick, metre-stick, anne- 
stick, or tape furnished by the Department. 

No. 4. —I have no knowledge of any collusion existing between entry 
clerks or deputy collectors and persons making entry of merchandise to 
be sent to the appraiser for examination. 

No. 5. —I have no knowledge. 

No. 6.—I have no knowledge of the number of suits pending in this or 
other places mentioned. I think the existing law in respect to the pay¬ 
ment of interest should be amended. The judicial system as it now 
exists can be made sufficient to try all cases growing out of internal or 
external taxation. 

No. 7.—I have no knowledge. 

No. 8.—I know of no evidence showing any guilty knowledge on the 
part of customs officials to promote conspiracy for the purpose of evad¬ 
ing the revenue laws. 



736 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


• 

No. 9. —I know of no evidence where the appraiser has made returns 
of false duties to the collector. Special agents are, as a rule, not ex¬ 
perts, and the information they obtain is usually from outside parties, 
and in many instances of an interested or prejudiced nature, and I 
know of no evidence to corroborate any statements made by them 14 as 
against the official action of the appraising department. ” 

No. 10.—I know of no confusion existing in the appraiser’s depart¬ 
ment in ascertaining correct dutiable values. The standard to be 
applied is sufficiently defined by the statutes. 

No. 11.—I do not think it practicable. 

No. 12.—The examiner is primarily and solely responsible for the re¬ 
turns of values made to the appraiser. The salary of examiners ranges 
from eighteen to twenty-five hundred dollars per annum. The ap¬ 
praiser’s functions are only executive, he only certifying to the returns 
made by the examiner and signed by the assistant appraiser. 

No. 13.—I know of no evidence. 

No. 14.—I have no knowledge. 

No. 15.—If false valuations exist, it is reasonable to suppose they will 
continue until the Department is able to enforce the full penalty of the 
law for its violation to the persons implicated, both at home and abroad. 

No. 16. —I think a change from ad valorem to specific duties would 
be of vast interest to the Government. Specific rates could be applied 
to textile fabrics. 

No. 17.—I have no knowledge. 

No. 18.—I think it would be practicable for consular agents to per¬ 
sonally examine all samples of articles submitted to them for shipment. 
Consular agents with commercial schooling would have but slight diffi¬ 
culty in ascertaining the proper market value of merchandise in their 
respective districts and certifying to its correct value. It is not likely 
that any foreign Government would have cause for complaint. I be¬ 
lieve the fees now exacted are 15 shillings sterling. 

No. 19.—I think that the judicial power should be the ultimatum in 
all cases of revenue where differences exist as to the proper rates. 

No. 20.—I have no knowledge. 

No. 21.—I know of no instances where money has been paid by pas¬ 
sengers to inspectors for the purpose of evading the payment of duties. 

No. 22.—I think not. 

No. 23.—I think not. 

No. 24.—I have no knowledge. 

Verv respectfpllv, 

FREDERICK H. CLARK, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 153. 


HARRISON H. BROWN—Appointed Examiner December 16, 1874. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office,-, 188-. 

Sir : I have the honor to submit herewith categorical answers to the 
questions submitted in your confidential communication, without date. 

1. Have no evidence. , 

2. Have no evidence. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 737 


3. Have no textile fabrics in my lines of goods for examination. 

4. Have no evidence. 

5. Have no evidence. 

6. Have no specific knowledge. Would suggest, however, the organi¬ 
zation of a special court to have jurisdiction in cases involving customs 
laws and their interpretation. 

7. Have no knowledge of such cases. 

8. Have no knowledge of such cases. 

9. No knowledge. 

10. There has been and still is much confusion and conflict of opin¬ 
ion as to the elements entering into the dutiable value of goods paying 
ad valorem duty, arising from the different interpretations of section 
7 of the act of 1883. 

11. I believe not. 


12. The examiner is primarily responsible, being in possession or 
should be so, of all information as to the condition of the markets from 
whence his lines of goods are shipped, while it is a physical impossibil¬ 
ity for the appraiser or deputy appraiser to receive, much less to re¬ 
tain, all the information in the possession of the examiners of the whole 
department. The salary of examiners range from $1,400 to $2,500 ; 
deputy appraiser, $3,000, and appraiser, $4,000 per annum. 

The appraiser’s time is fully occupied in deciding doubtful and deli¬ 
cate questions as to classification \ and market values, making depart¬ 
ment reports, and directing the working of his department. 

13. Have no knowledge. 

14. Have no knowledge. 

15. Like causes would no doubt produce like effects. 

16. A change to specific duties when practicable would no doubt be 
a benefit to the revenue. Have no knowledge of textile fabrics, being 
out of my line of goods. 

17. Have no knowledge, but do not think it has had the effect to in¬ 
crease false returns. 

18. I do not think it would be practicable, or even possible, to per¬ 
sonally examine at the ports of shipment all the articles shipped from 
the various ports, and would probably lead to many complaints from 
foreign governments. The consular fees are about $2.50 for each cer¬ 
tificate, regardless of value of invoice. 

19. I doubt if anything would be gained to the Government by en¬ 
larging the powers of the executive and judicial departments, unless a 
court was organized especially for this purpose in each of the more im¬ 
portant ports to ha^e jurisdiction both as to values and classifications. 

20. Have no knowledge. 

21. Have no knowledge. 

22. I do not think it does. 

23. Have no knowledge. 

24. Have no information. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

H. H. BROWN, 
Examiner of Food Products. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


47 A 


738 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 154. 


CHARLES E. WILSON—Appointed Messenger December 16, 1875; Clerk and Veri- 
fier^October 14, 1878; Examiner March 14, 1883. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , New York, October 4, 1885. 

Sir : I respectfully submit the following replies to the series of ques¬ 
tions received from your office in a circular marked u confidential: ” 

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24. I do not know. 

3. By measuring the pieces. 

7. I do not know of any article on which the department has failed 
to collect the full amount of duty that the law prescribes. 

8. I do not think there has been a failure. 

10. There is doubt and conflict of opinion as to some of the elements 
to be considered in fixing the dutiable value growing out of various 
opinions respecting the meaning of section 7. 

12. I consider the deputy appraiser chiefly responsible for all returns 
to the collector; his salary is $3,000 per annum. The appraiser has 
little to do with fixing the value of merchandise. 

16. I do not think so. 

19. I think it would be safe, useful to the revenues, and just to im¬ 
porters for the judicial powers to have judisdiction to determine du¬ 
tiable values, as they now determine rates of duty. 

20. I do not feel competent to do this. 

22. I do not think so. 

23. I do not think that the Department has failed to enforce the rev¬ 
enue law in New York or other ports. 

j Respectfully, yours, 

CHAS. E. WILSON. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 155. 

JAMES McLOUGHLIN—Appointed Inspector January 20, 1874; Clerk and Verified 
March 13, 1874 ; Clerk July 5, 1883; Examiner July 7, 1884. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 5, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your circular marked strictly confidential, I would 
respectfully state that, in answer to Question No. '1, I have no evidence 
whatever; and to Question No. 12, the examiner is primarily held 
responsible for the false return of value of merchandise to the collector. 
The salary of such officer is from fourteen hundred to twenty-five hun¬ 
dred dollars per annum. In the port of New York, where there is such 
an enormous amount of business transacted, it is impossible for the ap¬ 
praiser to examine personally the returns for values of merchandise made 
by the examiners, therefore he only officially certifies to the collector 
the values fixed by the examiners. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 739 


In regard to the balance of the questions, it is impossible for me to 
give any information whatever, as I have had no experience in the 
business which they Telate to. 

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES McLOUGULIN, 
Examiner , Packing-Room, First Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 156. 

WM. S. HOYT—Appointed Examiner February 1, 1879. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

October 5, 1885. 

Sir : In reference to Department’s printed communication containing 
twenty-four questions regarding the United States customs service, I 
have the honor of submitting the following report, comprising such 
knowledge of the matters referred to as has been acquired in my official 
experience. I also beg to state that the delay in responding has been 
caused by a severe sickness, from which I am now just recovering. 

1 and 2. I have no evidence that the prescribed rates have not been 
collected. 

3. The invoiced widths of textile fabrics are always verified, and 
when there is any suspicion that the lineal measurements are incorrect, 
they are also ascertained by actual measurement or tests. The yard 
and metre sticks furnished by the Government are used in taking such 
measurements. 

4 and 5. I know of no such evidence. 

6. As my experience has been confined entirely, or almost so, to 
examining goods at the public stores, I have had no opportunity of 
acquiring the information desired. 

7, 8, and 9. I know of no evidence showing such failure on the part 
of officials at this port. I have no knowledge of the transactions of 
public business at other ports. In my experience, I know, of no case 
where evidence furnished by special agents has been fully corroborated 
as against the official action of examiners at this port. 

10. I know of no such conflict of opinion except in the matter of 
dutiable charges. That matter is, I believe, at present before the Depart¬ 
ment. I consider the place, time, and standard to be applied are clearly 
defined by the statutes. 

11. I know of no way by which such an average estimate can be now 
made on the articles or invoices identified. 

12. The examiners are‘primarily and chiefly responsible in the usual 
course of business for reports of dutiable values. The appraiser and 
assistant appraisers do not ordinarily personally inspect merchandise 
under examination, but are frequently consulted on questions of law and 
evidence and their j udgment accepted by the examiners. The appraiser 
usually certifies without question to the value reported by the examiners 
and approved by the assistant appraisers. 

13. I know of no such evidence. 

14 and 15. I do not believe that false reports of dutiable values have 
been habitually and systematically reported, and I know no case where 
money has been paid to officials or where any official has been guilty of 
any action intentionally detrimental to the interests of the Government. 



740 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In my opinion, a change from ad valorem to specific rates would be a 
benefit to the revenue, provided the same amount can be collected, and 
would diminish a tendency to frauds. Specific rates can certainly be 
applied to all textile fabrics, but in some classes of goods, especially 
those coming under my observation— i. e., cotton fabrics—there should 
be great care to avoid discrimination against the lower classes or grades. 

17. I do not think false reports have been increased by the legisla¬ 
tion mentioned, and I regard the service to-day in fully as good condi¬ 
tion as at any time heretofore. 

18. I would appear impracticable for consular officers to personally 
examine articles intended for entry at American ports, and I do not 
know of any district where such a course could be adopted without giv¬ 
ing cause for numerous complaints. 

The fees in Great Britain are 15s.—10s. 6d. consular fees, 4s. Q>d. notary. 

19. I regard the law as it now stands as just and proper, and do not 
believe that the change mentioned would be judicious. 

20. I have had no experience in examining wool or woollen fabrics, 
and can give no information of the character desired. 

21. I have seldom, if ever, been present during the examination of 
baggage of arriving passengers, and do not know of any case where 
money has been paid to the officials conducting the examination. Should 
such practices prevail, they can oidy be prevented by prompt punish¬ 
ment of offenders when detected. 

22. I know of no articles on which the whole duty prescribed by law 
has not been collected, and, consequently, of none where the rate has 
been levied by Congress beyond a point that can be protected. 

23. I have had no official experience elsewhere than at the port of 
New York. 

24. If such false reports have been made, (of the fact of which I am 
ignorant,) I can give no information as to why the law governing such 
cases has not been enforced. 

Had I known of any frauds or corruption, of loss to the revenue, 
through ignorance of officials or other causes, I should have felt it my 
duty to have immediately reported the fact to my superior officer, and 
should have so acted. 

I am, with much respect, yours, &c., 

WM. S. HOYT, 

Examiner , Fourth Division , Appraiser’’ s Office . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 157. 

CORNELIUS GARDINIER—Appointed Examiner July 31,1876, and February 1,1879. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Offce, 

New York , October 5, 1885. 

Sir : Your communication of blank date, in relation to the levying 
and collection of duties and other matters, was received on the 10th 
ultimo, and would have received due attention, but for illness prevent¬ 
ing. In now replying, I respectfully submit the following: 

1. I have no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied and 
collected as the law prescribes. 

2. I have no satisfactory evidence that on articles which the law says 
shall pay specific rates of duty the full amount has not been collected. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 741 


3. The usual course to verify the invoice measurements of textile 
fabrics lias been and is to measure the length and width of pieces, the 
lengths being given in yards, metres, and annes customary in the 
countries in which they are purchased and shipped. 

4. I have no evidence of any collusion between the persons named to 
send to the appraiser bogus or false packages as fair samples of one in 
every ten. 

5. I have no evidence or knowledge of any false or incompetent or 
inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves. 

6. In relation to the rates of duty and differences between importers and 
collectors, I think the existing law in regard thereto sufficient. Also the 
payment of interest as part of the damages and costs in collection suits, 
and that there is no necessity for any new tribunal to try judicial ques¬ 
tions growing out of rates of external or internal taxation levied by the 
executive, if the existing law is worked efficiently. 

7 and 8. I am in possession of no sufficient information showing that 
the Treasury Department has during recent years failed to collect i*n 
Hew York the entire and full amount of duty the law prescribes. 

9. I have no conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the appraisers at 
this and other ports have reported to the collector false dutiable values. 
In regard to the remaining questions in this and Hos. 10 and 11, I have 
no sufficient or conclusive evidence to express any satisfactory opinion. 

12. As between the examiner, the deputy appraiser, and appraiser, I 
regard the examiner as primarily and chiefly responsible for the returns 
of value, having the personal examination of the merchandise and ap¬ 
plying the rates of duty. Salaries of the examiners varv from $1,800 
to $2,500. 

13. Have no evidence that any Government officers in the consular 
department or elsewhere have assisted, consented to, or connived at the 
presentation to the appraisers of false evidence of foreign values. 

14. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, there is, in 
my judgment, no reason to think that it will not be successful in the 
future as in the past. 

16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates would help to dimin¬ 
ish a tendency to bribery, but it would be difficult to apply it in all 
cases. 

17. Have no knowledge or information of the increase of false reports 
by the repeal of the “moiety” law of 1874 and the modification of the 
law of 1863, respecting the seizure of books and papers. 

18. Personal examinations by consuls or agents in the districts named, 
and verifying the correctness of invoice values, except by greatly in¬ 
creased force, and then accompanied by considerable delay. Consul 
fees in London and England, 15 shillings. 

19. I think it would not. 

20. Have no experience in this department. 

21. Can be prevented only in one way, by sure and quick punish¬ 
ment of offenders. 

22. I think not; have no knowledge of any. 

23. Have no knowledge in regard to other ports. 

24c. Cannot say. 

Respectfullv, &c., 

C. GARDINIER, 
Examiner, Fourth Division . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



742 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 158. 

CHARLES F. HARTMANN—Appointed Opener and Packer April 1, 1874 ; Examiner 

November 17, 1884. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 6, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully referring to your communication marked “confi¬ 
dential,” and requesting answers to a number of questions, marked 1 
to 24, I have the honor of making the following statements, after pref¬ 
acing that my experience as an examiner is not of long standing to 
have me furnished with an insight into many of the points contained in 
the questions to be answered. 

1. To the best of my belief, the rates of duties on the dutiable value 
of goods have been levied and collected according to law. 

2. Unknown to me. 

3. By the stamp of the manufactory, and for testing, or, in case of 
distrust, by actual measurement. 

4. I have not heard of any collusion between the entry clerks or dep¬ 
uty collectors and the importers. 

5. Unknown to me. 

6 to 9. On these points I am unable to give the necessary information. 

10. Not to my knowledge. 

11. Not by me, as I am not familiar with any facts regarding under¬ 
valuations. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual 
course of business, for a false return of value to the collector. The 
salary of examiners ranges from $1,800 to $2,500. 

13. Not known to me, but I do not think there is an examiner who 
considers the consul’s certificate as proof of the correct value of the in¬ 
voice, but appraises the goods to the best of his own expertness and 
experience. 

14. If false values have been habitually and systematically reported 
to the collector, and if the tariff law has not been faithfully executed, 
the guilty party can only be the examiner. 

15. To prevent any bribery or venality in the future is only possible 
by the employment of honest, incorruptible examiners. 

16. In regard to the change from ad valorem to specific duties there 
is a wide difference of opinion. As regards the goods I have to deal 
with, I hardly believe it would be possible to raise an amount of duty 
equal to the one realized at the present rates; and, furthermore, it would 
injure, to a great extent, the interests of American manufacturers. As 
I am not aware of any attempt of bribery, I also cannot express an opin¬ 
ion on the possible results of a change, principally in regard to textile 
goods. 

17. Not able to answer, inasmuch as when I was appointed to the 
position of examiner the law in question had long been out of practice. 

18. In regard to the consular service, I cannot give a definite opinion, 
not being familiar with the workings and customs of these offices. But 
I hold it rather to be impossible, except with an innumerable staff of 
officers, for these to supervise the shipments and the correctness of in¬ 
voices in regard to the correct dutiable values of the goods. 

18. In my opinion, it would not be advisable to have a greater num¬ 
ber of officers appointed to interfere with the ascertainment of the duti¬ 
able value of the merchandise, as the present law is allsufficient. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 743 


20. Unable to do so. 

21. It is greatly believed to be the case; but, as far as I know, when¬ 
ever the guilty parties were detected, they were punished by dismissal, 
and a stricter supervision being exercised" since some time, there is less 
heard of it. 

22. 23, and 24. Not able to give the necessary information. 

Having conscientiously answered the questions propounded to the 

best of my ability, I have the honor to sign, most respectfully, your 
obedient servant, 

CHABLES F. HABTMANN, 

Examiner , Ninth Division , of French and German Cutlery , Military 
Goods , Bronze-Powders, Dutch Metal , Files , Tin-foil , Watch¬ 
makers' and Jewellers'’ Tools , &c. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 159. 

HENRY C. SOUTHWORTH—Appointed Examiner December 27, 1884. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 23, 1885. 

Sir : My brief service in this department, or in any department of 
the Government, will be sufficient, I trust, to account to you for my 
failure to answer many of the inquiries contained in your communi¬ 
cation received by myself during this month. 

Inquiry 3.—I often take the weights and measurements of the lengths 
and widths of the goods examined by myself. 

Inquiry 10.—There have been some differences of opinion as to 
charges on packages. In my opinion, the place, the time, and the 
standard in order to fix dutiable value, are fully defined by the statutes. 

Inquiry 12.—In the usual course of business the examiner is primarily 
responsible for the return of value. Salaries range from $1,800 to 
$2,500. I was appointed at a salary of $1,800, which still remains at 
the same rate. I understand that the statutes only require the' ap¬ 
praiser to officially certify to the collector the return of value as re¬ 
ported by the assistant appraiser, who has confirmed the values fixed 
by the examiner. 

Inquiry 13.—I have no evidence of such a state of affairs, but the 
Basle (Swiss) expert reports, coming into my hands at irregular inter¬ 
vals, are quite unsatisfactory to myself. 

Inquiry 16.—I do not think specific rates can be applied beneficially 
to the revenue on the goods ordinarily examined by myself. 

Inquiry 18.—I think it would not be practicable, under the present 
circumstances, at London, Paris, Berlin, &c., to examine and verify as 
to the correctness of all invoices , but I think the service could be improved 
at these points. The consular office at Basle (Swiss) employs an expert. 
If it is a necessity to have such a person there, a greater or equal need 
exists for like service at St. Etienne, France. 

Inquiry 19.—From my brief observation, I think it would not be safe 
or useful to the revenue or just to the importer to interfere with, or 
revise, or set aside the decisions of the appraisers’ department respect¬ 
ing dutiable values if all the forms of law have been complied with. 

Inquiry 20.—Only for the last three months, July, August, and Sep¬ 
tember, have goods having wool in their composition passed under my 



744 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

examination, but, from this slight experience, I find the combination 
of ad valorem and specific rates work unjustly both to the revenue and 
to the importer. 

Very respectfully, 

HENRY C. SOUTHWORTH, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 160. 

HENRY HAVILAND—Appointed Examiner April 1, 1881. 

New York, September 24, 1885. 

Sir : In response to the letter addressed to me by you, I have the 
honor to make the following replies: 

Question No. 1.—I have no knowledge but what they have been. 

No. 2.—I do not know of any. 

No. 3.—No knowledge. 

No. 4.—None that I know. 

No. 5.—I have none. 

No. 6.—I do not know. 

No. 7. —No knowledge. 

No. 8. —-No knowledge. 

No. 9.—No knowledge. 

No. 10.—For the first clause, I do not know of any ; and for the last 
° ause, I‘think they are. 

No. 11.—I think not. 

lJVo. 12.—In my opinion, the examiner is primarily responsible. My 
salary is $1,800 per year. My experience with the appraiser has been 
that he has fully recognized the responsibility of his position, and made 
himself cognizant of correct values and the proper classification of 
goods. 

No. 13.—No knowledge. t 

No. 14.—No knowledge. 

No. 15.—No knowledge. 

No. 16.—I do not think a change from ad valorem to specific rates 
would be any benefit to the revenue. There are many articles to which 
a specific rate cannot be well applied. 

No. 17. —No knowledge. 

No. 18.—I do not think it would be practicable in the districts named, 
nor in any others, except such as those where the amount exported 
would be trifling. I think foreign governments would complain. I 
do not know what fees are exacted. 

No. 19.—I do not know. 

No. 20.—No knowledge. 

No. 21.—No knowledge. 

No. 22.—No knowledge. 

No. 23.—No knowledge. 

No. 24.—No knowledge. 

Yours, very* respectfully, 

HENRY HYVILAND, 

Drug Examiner , Seventh Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 745 


No. 161. 

CHARLES M. KEYSER—Appointed Clerk in Appraiser’s Office July 10, 1868; Ex¬ 
aminer July 5, 1883. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 24, 1885. 

Dear Sir: In reply to your circular, I will answer your Questions 
to the best of my ability. I entered the service July 10, 1868, as clerk 
and verifier, at $1,000 per annum, and have been promoted from time 
to time, having passed a civil service examination in April, 1874, and 
again in July, 1883, having then been promoted to the examinership 
of English w r oollens. 

No. 1 . —As far as I know, all duties levied have been collected. 

No. 2.—I know T of none. 

No. 3.—The only manner measurements of textile fabrics are verified 
is by comparing the tickets on goods with the invoice; and if any 
suspicion is aroused, the goods are then unrolled and measured. It 
would be impossible to measure all the goods, as w r e have not the room 
oi' help; the goods would be more or less soiled by handling. 

No. 4.—I have no evidence of collusion between importers, their 
agents, and Government officials. 

No. 5.—I have none. 

No. 10.—There is great confusion in arriving at the component parts 
of goods to ascertain the proper rates of duty to be imposed on so-called 
“silk and cotton seats.” On an analysis, the chemist reports less than 
2 per cent, of goods hair, (thus changing the rate of duty,) which cannot 
be discovered by feeling or seeing. 

No. 12.—The examiner fixes the value on the merchandise. The 
salaries fixed by law are from $1,800 and not more than $2,500. I 
believe they average from $1,600 to $2,200. My salary is $1,800. 

The appraiser certifies to the value given by the examiner and assist¬ 
ant appraiser. 

No. 13.—I am not aware of any. 

No. 16.—It would, if it could be accomplished; but specific duties 
would make low-price goods cost more than the high-price goods, and 
so cause the poor to pay a great deal more than the rich. I refer you 
to the schedule accompanying this letter. I have been as brief as pos¬ 
sible, and hope that it will contain some information to you. 

I am, very respectfully, 

CHARLES M. KEYSER, 

Examiner of English Woollens , 

Sixth Division , Appraiser's Department. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


746 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 162. 

HENRY J. ABBOTT—Appointed Inspector December 28, 1878; Examiner June 11, 

1883. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 24, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully referring to printed circular asking replies to 
twenty-four questions, I have the honor to report as follows : 

Though ranking as an examiner in the appraiser’s office, the duties 
of my position are those of a sugar expert in the United States labor¬ 
atory, and do not embrace the subjects involved in the inquiries re¬ 
ferred to. I cannot, therefore, make official replies to them, and pre¬ 
sume that/none other are desired. 

Respectfully, 

H. J. ABBOTT, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of Treasury. 


No. 163. . 

MARSHALL J. CORBETT—Appointed Examiner April 17, 1873. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 24, 1885. 

Sir: Your circular without date received. I would respectfully 
submit the following answers to the questions propounded : 

1. I have no evidence that the duties have not been collected as the 
law requires. 

2. I do not know that the specific duties prescribed by Congress 
have not been collected. 

3. By counting, measuring, and weighing. 

4. I know nothing about. 

5. I have no evidence that such is the case. 

6. I am not prepared to answer. 

7. I cannot specify such articles. 

8. I could not say. 

9. (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.) I know nothing about what evidence there is; 
depends upon the circumstances of the case. There is usually the evi¬ 
dence of interested parties. 

10. There has been in regard to the elements of chief value. The 
question as to the proportion of labor to apply on the different elements 
of value, and also the question of what charges enter into the dutiable 
value of the merchandise, I do not think these, things are clearly de¬ 
fined by the statutes. 

11. I think not. 

12. The examiner is given the invoice to compare the contents of 
the cases and report as to the quantity and value to the assistant ap¬ 
praiser. The amount of business done in the different divisions of the 
appraiser’s department in New York make it utterly impossible for the 
assistant appraisers to make such a critical examination as to enable 





REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 747 


them to report on either the values or quantities of the goods in their 
respective divisions j therefore, they must depend almost wholly upon 
the examiners, whose salaries are from eighteen to twenty-five hundred 
dollars per annum. The assistant appraiser reports the values to the 
appraiser, as, according to the law, (or usage,) an assistant appraiser 
signs every invoice, although many times he may know nothing about 
the correctness of it. The appraiser officially certifies to the collector 
the reports made by the assistant appraisers. 

13. I know of no evidence that any such thing has been purposely 
done. 

14. I know nothing of the matter. 

15. I don’t know. 

16. I think the collection would be easier; specific rates could be 
applied to all textile fabrics, but they would operate very unequally. 

17. This is more than I could say. 

18. I think it would be practical to send more information than we 
receive. All articles could not be reported without vexatious delays. 
What action, the foreign governments would take I could not say ; $2.50 
for each certificate. 

19. I think it be neither safe or useful. 

20. I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Lewis Heyl, the general 
appraiser at Philadelphia, is the best qualified to make such report. 

21. I don’t- know. 

22. I have not studied the matter. 

23. I don’t know. 

24. I don’t know. 

Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

MARSHALL J. CORBETT, 
Examiner , Appraiser’s Department , New York. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 164. 


J. HOWARD WAINWRIGHT—Appointed Examiner May 19 r 1883.. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 25, 1885. 

Sir : In regard to your letter of inquiry recently received by me, I 
beg leave to state that since my duties as examiner in the appraiser’s 
department consist exclusively of work as a chemist in the United 
States laboratory, and since I have nothing whatever to do with the 
passing of invoices or the examination of merchandise in any other 
manner than mentioned above, I am, therefore, unable to reply to your 
questions. 

Very respectfully, 

J. HOWARD WAIYWRIGHT, Fh. B., 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. G. 



748 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 165. 


JAMES F. GUILFOYLE—Appointed Opener October 28, 1873 ; Sampler October 20, 
1874; Examiner November 24, 1882. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 25, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully referring to tlie circular marked u strictly confi¬ 
dential” received from your Department, I desire to state that the 
questions embraced in said circular, from 1 to 11, inclusive, I am not 
in a position to speak intelligently upon matters contained therein. 

In reply to Question 12,1 can only state that, as between the examiner, 
assistant appraiser, and appraiser, the examiner, in the usual course 
of business done in this department, is primarily responsible for a 
false return of value to the collector. Under existing laws it is the 
duty of the assistant appraiser to appraise merchandise, with the aid 
and assistance of the examiner; but an assistant appraiser cannot per¬ 
sonally be an expert in all classes of goods passedupon in the division 
of which he is at the head, so that, to a very great extent, he must rely 
upon the knowledge of the examiner, who has constantly before him 
many cases of similar goods for different importers. Acting upon the 
knowledge which each examiner possesses, the assistant appraiser (who 
must rely upon the integrity and honesty of his examiners) certifies to 
the correctness of values to the appraiser, who, in turn, certifies the same 
to the collector. 

My salary is $1,800 per annum. 

The remaining questions in the circular I do not consider myself 
competent to speak upon. 

Very respectfully, 

JAMES F. GUILFOYLE, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


No. 166. 

HAYDEN M. BAKER—Appointed Examiner December 3, 1879. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 26, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the honorable 
Secretary’s confidential circular, without date, embracing twenty-four 
sections of interrogatories, calling for the presentation of facts and ex¬ 
pressions of opinions appertaining to the administration of and pro¬ 
posed amendments to the tariff laws. 

The writer’s official status imposes upon him the duty of determining 
the identities and component materials of the imported merchandise sub¬ 
mitted to his investigation, and thereafter reporting the findings to the 
appraiser, for the guidance of the assistant appraisers and their exam¬ 
iners, who subsequently classify, in keeping with the representations of 
ascertained individuality, composition, or relative value, according to 
their own understandings of the directions contained in the law or De¬ 
partment regulations. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 749 


The character of the subscriber’s work only qualifies him to furnish 
statistical or commercial information, in an incidental manner. His 
experiences as Government expert in the courts and to the district at¬ 
torney’s offices has, however, made him familiar with schemes, devices, 
and conditions that culminate in disaster to the Government interests. 
At the same time, it appears to him that some of the adversities might 
have been averted by the adoption of more discreet methods and the 
previous enactments of well-considered legal provisions. 

Assuming that these observations embrace facts related to some of 
the sections contained in the honorable Secretary’s circular, I respect¬ 
fully ask permission to submit the thoughts connected therewith, in the 
expectation that the presentation will convey available suggestions. 

Referring to Inquiry 7 of the circular, the subscriber affirms that the 
Treasury Department has been unsuccessful during recent years in 
levying and collecting the entire and full amount of duty prescribed by 
law upon aniline colors imported at Yew York. 

The subject is an exceedingly complex one, involving many intricate 
points, that made the irregularities possible j therefore, it is more than 
probable that the 44 evidence of failure ’ ’ would be ‘ 4 successfully con¬ 
troverted” if the word successfully, as used in the circular, refers to 
the results of a legal contest. 

As to 44 how” the evidence would be controverted, I submit that it 
would be brought about by the lapse of time, and by taking refuge be¬ 
hind the compound term 44 foreign market value,” which has been found 
at reappraisements to be an exceedingly elastic expression, applicable 
to secret contracts, embodying any kind of terms and conditions which 
parties may testify they have previously agreed to. 

To illustrate and emphasize this thought, let me solicit your attention 
to the following narration: 

One year ago last December, an importer furnished the writer, for 
Government use, a set qf staple aniline colors, and the firm’s contract 
prices with the manufacturer, (Carl Zimmer, on the Rhine.) The said 
prices were affirmed by Zimmer to be the actual cost of making the 
goods. 

The importer claimed, however, that all the merchandise would be, 
and was, invoiced at the regular European value, and at an advance 
upon the cost of fabrication. 

The firm also admitted that after such goods had arrived in this 
country and been sold, one-half of the profits, above cost, duties, and 
expenses, were transmitted to the manufacturer. 

This division of profits cemented the parties of the first and second 
parts into partnership. The Government, through its representatives, 
used the importer’s information and samples as standards for the de¬ 
termination of the values of aniline colors imported at Yew York. 

The tests were verified by comparisons with samples and current 
invoice values from the regular importations of William J. Miller & 
Co., of Yew York. The findings thereby deduced were reinforced by 
information from Consul Frank Mason and from United States Special 
Agent George C. Tichenor, who were abroad. The preponderance of 
testimony was also increased by the simultaneous examinations of the 
importations of Henry A. Gould & Co., of Boston, covering one or two 
years’ business, which we were investigating in concert with Dr. P. 
Ambrose Young, examiner of drugs and chemicals at Boston. The in¬ 
vestigations advanced every Yew York importer to reappraisement. 


750 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


When the cases were tried they came off, all in a bunch, during the cele¬ 
brated aniline-color suits in the United States district court. Neither 
the writer nor his exhibits could be in two dispersed localities at the same 
time, while the district attorney was disinclined to release the exhibits. 
At the reappraisements the importers acted as merchant appraisers 
upon each other’s cases without leaving the room. They testified that 
the European market was immensely overstocked, in consequence of 
the war then raging with China; therefore, by carrying the cash to 
Europe, they could and had bought large quantities of colors at less 
than the cost of their fabrication. The most extensive importer testified 
that the manufacturer in Europe was a partner in the American firm, 
having invested $150,000 in the concern which he represented. The 
Government was in possession of bona fide offers in Europe, by this 
same manufacturer, for quantities ranging from 200 kilos to 1,000 kilos, 
less 5 per cent, discount for cash. These offers were confidential circu¬ 
lars, that were put into the aniline-color suits because they were ser¬ 
viceable as exhibiting the manufacturer’s classification, which agreed 
with what the Government claimed should rule in assessing duty. They 
were withdrawn after the trial and carried to Boston to confront the 
importer at the Henry A. Gould & Co. reappraisements, but are, un¬ 
doubtedly, still in the possession of the Government. These offers were 
not accepted as market values, but, instead thereof, the merchant’s 
claims for individual and privileged transactions were considered as 
regular and legal rates. 

Your examiners claimed that all their representations were propor¬ 
tional factors of unfinished transactions, which could not properly rep¬ 
resent a European market value, because the apportionment of profits 
to be subsequently realized actually belonged therewith. 

It was also argued on the part of the merchants, who were sustained 
by the general and merchant appraisers, that duties must be assessed 
according to the foreign market value at the time of exportation, while 
the assumption of future profits referred to a dubious quantity, that 
could not be considered in an official act. 

At the same the importers admitted that European buyers could not 
purchase at rates similar to those which were obtained for goods com¬ 
ing to the United States. It was also made apparent that reputable 
and competent buyers in Europe, with an abundance of cash and un¬ 
questionable credit, could not purchase for the United States at terms 
practically approximating those designated in the invoices of Amer¬ 
ican importers, because the manufacturers were bound to the said im¬ 
porters by terms they felt under no obligation to disclose. The mer¬ 
chants also affirmed that the history of sales adduced on the part of 
the Government only represented transactions by limited or insignifi¬ 
cant operations. 

It was also developed at these hearings that valuations for Austra¬ 
lia, China, India, or Japan were all different quantities. We affirm 
that the establishment of a market value each time a transaction is 
effected annihilates the force of the expression and renders the assump¬ 
tion that an examiner can divine the terms of a negotiation between 
two parties he does not know (by the examination of a sample from 
the merchandise transferred) a positive absurdity. Surely, the ex¬ 
pression “market value” ought not to be so susceptible to fluctuating 
import as do include one man’s favorable opportunities and another’s 
fatal disadvantages at the same time. Please allow me to indicate the 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 751 


manner in which this question of market value influences the matter 
of classification by obscuring or misrepresenting the real character of 
merchandise. 

In the Turquoise Silk cases, the one tried in New York, before Judge 
Shipman, being designated the “Meitman case,” and the other issue 
tried at Philadelphia, during October, 1883, Judges McKenna and 
Butler presiding, the question of classification depended upon whether 
the component silk or the component cotton should sway the decision. 

If the cotton amounted to 25 per cent, or more of the whole value 
of the goods, then the merchandise was entitled to the lower classifi¬ 
cation. 

In the issue at Philadelphia, the plaintiff arrayed and displayed all 
the costs of raw materials, with the expenses for weaving, dyeing, and 
finishing, to prove that cotton was the constituent, exceeding 25 per 
cent, of the whole value. 

The calculations were made upon one thousand yards of each kind, 
at so many marks and pfennings per metre, the silk being billed by the 
pound in dollars and cents, and the cotton in pounds, shillings, and 
pence, while the reckoning for dyeing, weaving, and finishing was com¬ 
puted in francs and centimes. 

The value of the cotton in one lot was ascertained to be $1.02]%- per 
pound; in the second parcel, $1.34 T 7 ^ per pound; and for the third 
exhibit, $1.36-j% per pound, when the values were translated. 

The chemical and microscopic examinations indicated that the three 
kinds were of one quality substantially. 

After the plaintiffs rested, the Government unravelled the knot they 
had tied. 

They were stunned by the results their own factors afforded, until 
Judge McKenna’s inquiries into the causes of disagreement revealed 
hiding-places behind the 10 per cent., 18 per cent., and 22 per cent, 
discounts from designated invoice prices. 

These revelations induced the learned judge to inquire, “What is a 
market value, if it isn’t the price a man pays for goods?” 

This leads to the very point we are anxious to impress upon the hon¬ 
orable Secretary, namely, that the plaintiff had prepared an exhibit 
showing that the organzine (raw silk) cost, after deducting allowable 
discounts, $5.40 per pound, which was really its proper value at that 
time compared with regular unquestionable transactions. He then 
expends in labor and material about 22 per cent, of the invoice price. 
After the goods are complete, they are invoiced at a fair market value, 
from which 18 per cent, discount is allowed. 

But that 18 per cent, discount upon the finished fabric comes off from 
the cost of the silk as well as the other components, the charges for the 
same being already presented at a fair valuation. 

Can a firm continue in business by purchasing silk at $5.40 per pound, 
afterwards advancing its worth by more expenditures, an d finally selling 
it at $4.42 t % per pound, which is equal to 18 per cent, discount from 
the paying price? 

This kind of business inevitably terminates in bankruptcy, but the 
people who pursue the course described seem to thrive on their draw¬ 
backs. 

These complications are presented to enforce the conviction that a 
limitation by legislative enactment should be assigned to the expression 
“foreign market value.” 


752 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Referring now to Inquiry 10 of the circular, I have the honor to 
enclose an illustration of the confusion incident to the determination 
of the dutiable value of some woollen goods. 

Exhibit A reveals the perplexity. In the filter-paper within the 
envelope will be found cotton fibres derived from the accompanying 
sample, amounting to 3.84 per cent, of the whole, the balance being 
wool. Examiners classify these goods as mixtures of “ cotton and 
wool,” presuming that they have no authority to appraise the intent 
of mixing as an effort to deprive the Government of its proper duty. 

Exhibit B contains four similar samples. Upon what basis or by 
what directions these goods are classified as mixtures of cotton and 
and wool the writer does not know; but paragraph 362, new tariff, 
provides for “ woollen cloths * * * and all manufactures, of every 
description, made wholly or in part of wool, not specially enumerated 
or provided for.” This language amply describes this kind of mer¬ 
chandise, but possibly the goods may be specially enumerated and pro¬ 
vided for by paragraph 363, as “flannels,” or by paragraph 365, as 
“women’s and children’s dress-goods, coat-linings, Italian cloths, and 
goods of like description,” and possibly some other measure. 

Exhibit C is another illustration of the same subject. 

These exhibits are taken from the bundles of retained samples pre¬ 
served by the writer to verify his findings in case of disagreement or 
subsequent investigations. 

Exhibit D is herewith enclosed to exemplify the same causes of con¬ 
fusion with reference to silk goods, importers having the articles made 
to keep inside of the legal line, according to their interpretation of law 
and estimates of Department decisions relating thereto. 

As a matter of observation, the said “legal line” appears to be 
swayed about, up and down, always in motion by changing conditions, 
the doubts of administrators, and the winds of sharp practice, until its 
theoretic station, legal altitude, judicial course, and final whereabouts 
are confounded with the unknowable. 

Exhibits might be enclosed in great numbers to display the same 
kind of conflicts regarding plushes of silk, goat and cattle hair, silk 
mixtures, cotton and linen, silk, cotton, wool, and ramie mixtures, but 
we assume that enough causes of confusion have been exhibited to 
advocate and inaugurate a search for remedies. 

Referring to Inquiry 11 of the circular, we claim that no reliable 
estimate can now be made that would approximate the actual facts con¬ 
cerning undervaluations in any year or series of years. 

In answer to Inquiry 12 of the circular, it may be said that the ap¬ 
praiser certifies to values reported to him by assistant appraisers and 
examiners when no conflict of opinion occurs between these officers and 
the importers or their representatives; therefore, in such instances the 
examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, unless he has divided 
the responsibility by consultation with the assistant appraiser. 

If a merchant feels aggrieved by the action of official subordinates, 
he can, and often does, appeal to the appraiser to have his case and 
causes of complaint reconsidered and adjusted. 

During the hearings the appraiser acts in a judicial capacity, listens 
to both sides, compares the presentations with the law and Department 
decisions thereunder, and finally renders his opinion according to the 
developments of investigation. 

Referring now to Inquiry 16 of the honorable Secretary’s circular, we 
assume, in answer thereto, that the “existing quantity of duty could 


RKPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 753 

not be levied upon imports by a change from ad valorem to specific 
rates,” because such a change would greatly diminish the quantities of 
importation by the exclusion of seconds, thirds, and fourths, unless spe¬ 
cific rates were established, for different grades of the same kind, similar 
to the regulations pursued in assessing duty upon sugar. 

As to how this adjustment should be made equitably depends upon 
the elaborate computations from the inherent qualities and consumed 
quantities of the merchandise subjected to consideration. 

As to the effect such a change would exert in diminishing a tendency 
to bribery, we claim that it would be utterly impotent, for wherever 
and whenever this propensity exists it is uniformly accompanied with 
a cunning ingenuity equal to that engaged in legislating against it. 

The love of justice and correct deportment are inseparable; there¬ 
fore, the public weal is securely guarded or grossly neglected in exact 
ratio with the moral status of its public servants and their ability to 
contend with nefarious plots. 

The writer is happy to say that nearly all the men he has met as 
Government officers have appeared to be sincere and conscientious ser¬ 
vants. The same remark is true of most of the importers, but some 
of them claim doubtful privileges. Referring now t^o one of the inqui¬ 
ries contained in Inquiry 6 of the circular, the writer begs to call the 
honorable Secretary’s attention to one collector’s suit now on appeal 
to the Supreme Court, namely, the Tetra-bromofluoresic Acid case. If 
this case is properly presented before the Supreme Court, it will be or¬ 
dered back for new trial on the ground that it was “otherwise pro¬ 
vided for” than as an acid ‘‘used for chemical and manufacturing pur¬ 
poses. ’ ’ 

At the trial in the court below, the testimony adduced by or ex¬ 
tracted from both sides proved it to be an aniline color. The learned 
judge charged the jury that if “they found it to be an acid, no matter 
if it was also an aniline color, then they must find for the plaintiff;” 
but he overlooked the fact that it ought also to be an acid “not. other¬ 
wise provided for,” while as an aniline color it was so provided for. 

This case is of immense importance, beyond the possible saving of a 
sum to the Government ranging from $90,000 to $140,000. 

If the plaintiffs can be sustained, then it will follow that a vast num¬ 
ber of substances can be isolated from their combinations and brought 
in as “acids, not otherwise provided for,” (free,) while the adminis¬ 
tration will be powerless to prevent the ultimate success of the schemes. 

Please allow me to direct your attention to paragraph 594, new tariff, 
which reads, “acids used for medicinal, chemical, or manufacturing 
purposes, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act.” After 
this enumeration, how many other purposes are left for which acids can 
be used? The applications of such a provision are nearly limitless. 
Equity to the merchants who import with a sincere regard for their 
obligations to the Government, together with the necessity for uniform 
applications of law, demand that the wisdom of Congress be directed 
to the effects of this measure. 

There is one other matter not inquired about in the honorable Secre¬ 
tary’s circular, but which is suggested by apparent necessity, namely, 
that in the event that a commission is appointed to ascertain the in¬ 
congruities of the tariff law, the said commission could acquaint itself 
with the difficulties by holding its preliminary sessions in the exam¬ 
iners’ rooms of appraising departments, and assuming to say what dis- 

48 A 


754 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


position of merchandise should be made to comply with the law and 
Department instructions relating thereto. 

The honorable Secretary can see why this course would be advan¬ 
tageous when reminded that paragraphs 1, 3, and 6 ot Schedule A 
treat of the same chemical substance and impose three different rates 
of duty. Crude and refined conditions would interpose numerous ob¬ 
jections and suggest definite limitations that would amount to instruc¬ 
tions. 

The writer has been prolix and candid by reason of the intricacies 
of the inquiries. He hopes that the thoughts herein advanced will be 
found available for the honorable Secretary’s purposes, and that the 
ideas projected will atone for the great length of the communication. 

I remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

HAYDN M. BAKER, 
Chemist , U. S. Laboratory , New York City. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 167. 


EDWARD SHERER—Appointed Examiner May 4, 1880. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 21, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to printed circular, without date, marked 
“strictly confidential,” received from the Department September 9, 
1885, requesting replies to twenty-four inquiries, I have the honor to 
report as follows: 

It is proper to state that, while legally rating as an examiner in the 
office of the appraiser, my actual position as chemist in charge of the 
United States laboratory at this port is one that affords me no oppor¬ 
tunity in an official capacity to acquire information on most of the sub¬ 
jects of these inquiries. The duties of my office do not, in general, 
embrace any examination of questions of rates of duty or of dutiable 
values, but simply questions of identity and determinations of the com¬ 
ponent parts of samples of such importations as require chemical an¬ 
alysis to assist the examiner having the appraisement of such importa¬ 
tions to decide upon the dutiable value or rate of duty. 

In regard to Inquiry No. 1, I am of the opinion that the rate of duty 
which the law prescribes upon artificial mineral water has not been 
heretofore levied and collected. The evidence upon which such opinion 
is based is contained in my report to the appraiser of June 16, 1881, 
upon imported Apollinaris water. This report, with other papers, was 
submitted by the Department to the Attorney-General on June 29, 
1881, and an opinion rendered by that officer on July 26, 1881. 

I am also of the opinion that the rate of duty prescribed by law was 
not levied and collected upon a certain importation of sugar from Hon¬ 
olulu, Hawaiian Islands, on June 26, 1882. The reasons for such opin¬ 
ion are given in my reports to the appraiser of September 23 and Sep¬ 
tember 25, 1882, on the appeal of Messrs. Watgean, Toel & Co. from 
the classification for duty of this importation of sugar. (Copies of the 
reports herein referred to are herewith enclosed.) 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


755 


Respecting the subject of Inquiry No. 16, it is certain that- the levy¬ 
ing and collection of specific duties are not attended with the uncertainty 
and temptation to fraud that are inseparable from the assessment of 
ad valorem duties. 

The difficulty of defining the term u foreign market value’ 7 and 
determining the actual relation existing between the foreign manu¬ 
facturer and the importer renders, in many cases, the ascertainment of 
such value impossible. 

In my judgment, a specific rate adjusted upon a scale of relative 
values or varying qualities of a manufactured product is most equitable, 
and can be levied and collected with least friction between the apprais¬ 
ing officers and the importers, and offers the least temptation to fraud. 

The rate of duty assessed by the existing tariff on imported raw 
sugars of foreign manufacture affords the best illustration of this mode 
of appraisement. Since the enactment of the present tariff there have 
been 36,849 samples of different importations of sugar tested in dupli¬ 
cate in this laboratory by the polariscope, and the rate of duty deter¬ 
mined by such test. From the classification thus arrived at there have 
been on the part of the importers no appeals to the Department. 
Evidently this mode of determining the rate of duty is attended with 
but little conflict of opinion between the appraising officers and the 
importers. That the Government is fully protected is equally certain 
from the fact that the w idest publicity is given to the results obtained 
by the appraisers, and the close competition between the merchants 
would cause them to detect at once any case of undervaluation in test 
giving an unfair advantage to any of their number. 

A similar method of levying and collecting duties upon all imported 
articles, in so far as practicable, w r ould, in my judgment, be attended 
with the most satisfactory results. 

I respectfully submit, in conclusion, that official replies to the in¬ 
quiries, with the exception of those above given, cannot be made by me, 
as they do not fall within the scope of my official duties. 

Very respectfully, 

EDWARD SHERER, 

Chemist in Charge. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 168. 

W. C. POTTER—Appointed Examiner August 18, 1883. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street, September 22, 1885. 

Dear Sir : Your confidential circular received, and I offer the fol¬ 
lowing replies: 


Answers to Questions. 


■ No. i.—x have no evidence that collections have not been made 
according to law. 

No. 2 .—Think full values of duties have been collected. 

No. 3.—I have no special information on textile fabrics. My depart¬ 
ment is drugs. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


7 .%* 


No. 4.—J have no evidence of collusion, as I have never yet dis¬ 
covered anything of that nature in examination of goods. 

No. 5.—My business of drug examiner does not bring me in direct- 
contact of weighing or measuring departments, so have no knowledge 
of wrong. 

No. 6.—In respect to differences between importers and collectors 
about rates of duties, the present law is good enough. It does not 
need amendment. Have no information about suits pending in Boston, 
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, &c. Law for payment of interest 
as part of damages does not need amendment. Existing judicial sys¬ 
tem sufficient. 

No. 7.—Have no knowledge upon this subject. 

No. 8.—Know of no conspiracy among Treasury or custom-house 
officials that would account for failure in collections. 

No. 9.—The official actions of the appraising department thoroughly 
honest and correct, so far as I have any knowledge. 

No. 10.—There has been a conflict of opinions about the coverings in 
which dutiable articles are shipped, but are now better understood. 

No. 11.—I have no means now of making a safe average-estimate of 
undervaluations in past years. 

No. 12.—The examiner is responsible. Salary, eighteen to twenty- 
five hundred dollars. The appraiser accepts the values fixed and re¬ 
ported to him by examiners and assistant appraisers, and he officially 
reports them to the collector. 

No. 13.—Have no information of false statements. 

No. 14.—Have no knowledge of false and dishonest practices. 

No. 15.—There seems to be a higher mercantile standard, and the 
realization that in the end u honesty does pay.” 

No. 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates in many cases 
would be advantageous. Do not think specific rates could be applied 
to all textile fabrics. 

No. 17.—Know of no false reports. 

No. 18.—Do not think it possible for consuls to verify all invoiced 
values. It might be possible in some smaller districts, where there is 
very little business. Think foreign governments w r ould complain over 
unnecessary delays. The charges are 15 shillings sterling upon each 
invoice, without regard to values. 

No. 19.—See nothing to be gained by a change of law. 

No. 20.—I have no know ledge about wool, as it does not come in my 
department. The sixth division of our department can give informa¬ 
tion upon everything pertaining to w r ool. 

No. 21.—No information on the subject. 

No. 22.—Do not think low er duties would insure closer collections. 

No. 23.—Know nothing concerning enforcement of revenue law at 
other ports. 

No. 24.—When such cases have been discovered, they have been 
prosecuted and punished. Large sums have been collected from such 
cases. Care and honesty on part of officials leave little room for fraud. 

Respectfully, 

W. C. POTTER, 

l)rug Examiner , Seventh Division , Appraisers Dept. 

Hon. Daniet Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


757 


No. 109. 

W. H. MAXWELL—Appointed Messenger, New York, November 21, 1881 ; Clerk 
May 1, 1883; Examiner November 21, 1883. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 11, 1885. 

Sir : 1 beg leave to say, in reply to your u confidential inquiries, 77 
that since my appointment as an 1 ‘ examiner 7 7 1 have been assigned to 
duty as examiner in charge of sample office, and in my official duties 
I have not been called upon to question values or rates of duty, but 
simply to ascertain if goods are clearly samples, and not of a dutiable 
nature as samples. Your letter calls for a response from me, and in 
order to show due respect to the head of the Department, I answer 
same to best of my ability, under the numbers in your circular. 

1 have the honor to be, yours, very respectfully, 

W. H. MAXWELL, 
Examiner , United States Sample Office. 

1 and 2. I have no official knowledge that the rates of duty, as the 
law prescribed, have not been levied and collected. 

3. I have no official experience as to manner and tests of measure¬ 
ments of texile fabrics. 

4. I have no evidence of collusion between persons making entry so 
as to send a bogus package for examination to appraiser’s department. 

5. I have no knowledge of false or incompetent or inadequate weigh¬ 
ing or measurement on the wharves. 

6. I do not consider myself qualified to make any reply to this. 

7. I have not in line of official duty found it necessary to follow up 
investigations so as to enable me to make any reply to this. 

8. Eeply to Inquiry 7 covers this. 

9. I have no knowledge that the appraiser ’has reported false duti¬ 
able values to the collector. 

10. In my official capacity, have never been in doubt as to dutiable 
values; I consider place, time, and the standard already defined. 

11. My official duties do not give me any knowledge as to under¬ 
valuations. 

12. The examiner is chiefly responsible for a false return of value to the 
collector. The assistant appraiser and appraiser must necessarily rely 
on his subordinates when he affixes his signature to invoice, unless he 
or they have been personally consulted. Salaries of examiners range 
from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. 

13. I have no evidence or knowledge of any person in the consular 
service assisting or conniving at the presentation of false foreign values. 

14. Cannot make any reply. 

15. Cannot reply. 

16. I do not think a change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
benefit the revenue or diminish bribery. Do not think specific rates 
could be applied to all fabrics. 

17. Having recently entered the custom service, cannot reply to this. 

18. Cannot say what fees are exacted other than those allowed by the 
regulations furnished by the Department. Do not think it practicable 
for consular agents to supervise or examine all goods, and complaints 

would be made, as such a course would cause delay. 


758 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

19. I think it would be safe and just to importers, that the execu¬ 
tive or judicial powers have greater jurisdiction, and also useful to the 
revenue. 

20. My official duties have not caused me to make a study of rates of 
duty on wool, therefore cannot make reply. 

21. I have no knowledge of the payment of money by passengers to 
inspectors to facilitate or hasten examination of baggage. 

22. Do not consider myself qualified to make any reply. 

23. I think the Department has and is now doing all in its power to 
enforce the revenue law at this port. 

24. I have no official knowledge as to false returns or reports of du¬ 
tiable values. If such reports have been made, do not know why such 
dishonest officials have not been punished. 

The foregoing is respectfullv submitted. 

W. H. MAXWELL, 

Examiner in Charge of U. S. Sample Office. Port of New York. 


No. 170. 

A. G. REMSEN—Appointed Examiner December 15, 1869. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street, New York, September 23, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to your letter asking for such information as I may 
be able to give regarding the customs service at this port, I respectfully 
submit the following: 

My duties are confined to the examination of the following-enumer¬ 
ated articles: Sugar, molasses, -melado, cane-sirup, honey, glucose, 
grape-sugar, and confectionery, and as the classifying of sugar keeps 
me constantly employed, it leaves me but little time or opportunity to 
acquaint myself with the other branches of business conducted in the 
department. 

In answer to the first eight inquiries, I would state, if there has been 
failure to collect the entire and full amount of duty that the law pre¬ 
scribed, such failure has been in some cases caused by the complica¬ 
tions of the tariff law, and in others, no doubt, by dishonest officials. 

In answer to Inquiries 9 and 10, I beg to state that the statutes 
already define the rules to be observed in the classification of goods. 

In answer to Inquiry 11, I think it would be difficult to determine 
correctly. 

In answer to Inquiry 12, I would state that the examiner is the re¬ 
sponsible person for a false return. The salary of such officers range 
from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. The appraiser has to rely upon the 
honesty and capability of the examiner and assistant appraiser. 

In reply to Inquiries 13 and 14, I have no evidence. 

Inquiry 15.—I know of no reason. 

Inquiry 10.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates would be a 
benefit to the revenue and diminish the tendency to bribery. I would 
respectfully suggest specific duties on glucose, grape-sugar, and on all 
confectionery. The tariff is complicated on confectionery, and at times 
difficult to define; and as to glucose and grape-sugar, we are in doubt 
as to correct values. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


759 


In reply to Inquiry 18, I would state that I hardly think it would be 
practicable, as it would cause delays, and be the means of causing com¬ 
plaints from foreign governments. 

In reply to Inquiry 19, I think it would be safe for the executive or 
judicial powers to have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascer¬ 
tainment of dutiable values. 

In answer to Inquiry 21, the practice could be prevented by putting 
honest men in office. 

hi reply to Inquiry 24, if such false returns or reports have been 
made, and the officials responsible for such false returns have not been 
punished, it has been because of powerful political influence or a lack 
of proof to indict them. 

Very respectfully, 

A. G. REMSEN, 
Examiner , Eighth Division . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 171. 


A. I). FENTON—Appointed Examiner May 13,1878. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office. 

402 Washington Street, September 22, 1885. 


Sir: In reply to section 12 of the series recently received from you, 
1 have the honor to say that, as between the examiner, assistant ap¬ 
praiser, and the appraiser, I consider the examiner as chiefly respon¬ 
sible for any return of value to the collector. The maximum salary of 
an examiner is fixed at $2,500. The appraiser has little or nothing to 
do with fixing the value of invoices, only certifying officially the values 
fixed and reported to him by the examiner and assistant appraiser. 

Very respectfully, &c., 

A. D. FENTON, 
Examiner , Third Division. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary TJ. S. Treasury , Washington , D. G. 


' No. 172. 

WILLIAM C. JACOBS—Appointed Examiner July 15, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September —, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to yours of the 8th, I would respectfully state that, 
after a close and minute perusal of your letter, I am inclined to believe 
that you are in pursuit of such information ns each examiner is pos¬ 
sessed of over that branch of goods with which he is connected. If this 
be a proper interpretation, I shall endeavor to answer with clearness 
those questions I am familiar with, while ignoring those of which I 
have little if any knowledge. 




760 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The goods coming under my direct supervision are sugar, melado, 
molasses, cane-juice, glucose, honey, and confectionery, and all an 
swers I may make to the questions propounded will be in keeping with 
that fact. 

In reply to Questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, I beg to state that no tangible 
evidence is in my possession detrimental to the Government’s receiv¬ 
ing its just due, while, on the contrary, I feel justified in saying that in 
many instances, especially of sugar duties, the Government has received 
more than it was justly entitled to, owing to Treasury regulations which 
deny to us the power of discriminating between right and wrong. If 
the Government has failed in any case to receive its just due upon 
sugar, it is no fault of the law, but can be attributed to either the 
negligence or dishonesty of its officials. 

In reply to Questions 10 and 16, I would state that of late we have 
received complaints from the home manufacturers of glucose that for¬ 
eign invoices of that commodity have been undervalued, and consid¬ 
erable doubt has arisen as to which is right, the opinions being numer¬ 
ous and conflicting. In order to avoid future difficulty, I would re¬ 
spectfully suggest that a specific rate per pound or hundred-weight be 
levied on grape-sugar, glucose, and confectionery. In all cases where 
a specific duty can be levied with equity to all, I think it advisable, as 
it would tend to simplify the tariff, relieve us of much anxiety, and 
prove a barrier to the machinations of dishonest merchants and corrupt 
officials. 

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I should answer Questions 
11 and 13 in the negative. 

In reply to Question 12, I beg to state that the examiner is the re¬ 
sponsible party. His return is certified to by the deputy appraiser, 
which in turn is certified to by the appraiser and then returned to the 
collector. 

In reply to Questions 14 and 15, I would say that if under the previous 
administration of the Treasury false values have been habitually and 
systematically reported to the several collectors, and if the tariff law 
has not been faithfully executed, and if the full amount of duty has not 
been collected, it can fairly be said the failure has come of either negli¬ 
gence or dishonesty. 

If moneys have been paid to American officials to get false reports 
of dutiable values, it has undoubtedly been paid by those representing 
the parties most interested. If the aforesaid corruption has taken 
place in the past, I see no reason why the same practices will not be 
continued in the future, and just so long as the public service contains 
men of dishonest proclivities. 

As to American consular agents in large consular districts personally 
examining goods and certifying to invoice values, I doubt of the suc¬ 
cess of such a movement, while admitting its salutary tendencies. It 
would require a large force, be attended with vexatious delays, and 
undoubtedly be the means of causing numerous remonstrances from the 
home governments to us against such procedure. 

If our consular agents will exercise great care as to invoice values, 
and keep us well informed, I think it about as much as can consistently 
be accomplished. The fees exacted are, to the best of my knowledge, 
$2.50 an invoice. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 761 


It would be safe and useful to tlie revenues, and just to importers, if 
the executive and judicial powers bad greater jurisdiction to interfere 
with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which is to be the basis 
on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates. 

Verv respectfully, 

WILLIAM O. JACOBS, 
Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 173. 


SAMUEL BOWNE—Appointed Sampler January 31, 1879; Examiner July 27, 1885. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 15, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your favor of 8th instant, I beg leave to remark 
that I fear I can be of little service to you, as I am examiner of drugs, 
and have had little experience in dry-goods and the general routine of 
custom-house affairs in Wall street. 

I am not aware that any great conflict of opinion exists in regard to 
dutiable values. It seems to be coming more general, however, that 
all raw materials should be admitted free, and in my opinion a change 
in many articles from ad valorem duties to specific values would be 
beneficial. 

One word in regard to a matter I am quite familiar with—that is, 
salaries in this department. The examiners are almost always the only 
ones who see the merchandise when examined, unless, when in doubt, 
they call upon the assistant appraisers, although the examiners are 
supposed to be the only experts , and, as a matter of justice, they should 
receive the same salaries as the assistant appraisers; and all examiners 
should receive the same amount, say, $2,500 or $3,000, as others than 
myself have but $1,800 per annum. 

Lewis McMullen, our worthy appraiser, is, in my opinion, the best 
man for the place we have had in twenty years. He has had nothing 
to learn, and to him we are indebted for the quiet working of this 
department, and in comparison with former administrations is simply 
astonishing. Mr. McMullen is at his desk at 9 a. m. , ready for business, 
which proceeds like clock-work, as he not only does his whole duty to 
the Government, but expects all his subordinates to do theirs. 

It would afford me much pleasure to hear from you whenever I can 
be of service to the Department over which the present Secretary of 
the Treasury has so ably presided for the past few months. 

With great respect, I am, your obedient servant, 

SAMUEL BOWNE. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



762 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 174. 

New York, September 23, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to Question No. 12, I have to say that the exam¬ 
iners are almost entirely responsible , in the usual course of business, for 
false returns of values to the collector, because they, and no one else, 
rarely see the merchandise sent to the appraiser’s department for ex¬ 
amination. 

After the examiners have examined the goods, the invoices are signed, 
the packages mailed , corded , and sealed , the assistant appraiser signs 
underneath the examiner the invoices sent to the appraiser, who af¬ 
fixes his stamp, and it goes to the collector. 

The salaries of the examiners vary from $1,800 to $2,500. It is not 
my desire to underrate the duties of the appraiser, for it is absolutely 
necessary to have a head to the establishment, one acquainted with its 
duties as well as merchandise, and one w hom all in the building respect 
and many fear; and it is now understood by all that any cause for re¬ 
moval or suspension will be acted upon with promptness, and it is 
also understood that the appraiser’s private office is no place for polit¬ 
ical loafers , who have in former times greatly interrupted the business 
of the appraiser. 

If I have spoken too plainly or freely of the management of this de¬ 
partment, I ask your pardon ; but you seemed to expect plain, unvar¬ 
nished answers, and I have endeavored to answer your questions with 
truthfulness. 

With great respect, I am, your obedient servant, 

SAMUEL BOWNE, 

Examiner of Drugs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 175. 

E. C. LESEUR—Appointed Examiner September 6, 1878. 

Port of New York, Aprraiser’s Office, 

September 22, 1885. 

Sir: In response to your “confidential circular,” received on the 
8th instant, I respectfully beg leave to reply to the following questions: 

Question No. 3.—The only textile fabric that I examine is Italian 
cloth, of German manufacture. Said goods are imported in pieces of 
about thirty-eight metres in length, are done up in tillots, and each 
piece marked on the outside with the number of metres it contains. 
Whenever any doubt exists as to the correctness of the invoiced meas¬ 
urement, the lengths are verified by actual measurement. 

Question No. 10.—There has been a conflict of opinion in this de¬ 
partment regarding the elements of dutiable value. Under recent in¬ 
structions, coverings of every description not essentially necessary to 
convey the goods to the United States are held to be a part of their 
dutiable value. The condition in which merchandise is held for sale 
by the owner is considered to be the actual market value, and duty is 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


763 


assessed thereon accordingly. The place, time, and standard is defined 
in the statutes. 

Question No. 12.—“As between the examiner, assistant appraiser, 
and appraiser,” in the usual course of business the examiner is pri¬ 
marily responsible for a false return of value to the collector. Although 
under the law it is the prerogative of the assistant appraiser to appraise 
merchandise, and the duty of the examiner to “aid and assist,” yet, 
as a rule, the examiner is the only one that examines and fixes values; 
he reports the same to the assistant appraiser, and lie officially certifies 
to the appraiser, and the appraiser to the collector. The salary of an 
examiner in this department is “not more than $2,500 per annum.” 

Question No. 16.—I believe that a change from ad valorem to specific 
rates would be a benefit to the revenue, and also a great protection to 
honest importers and American manufacturers. High rates of ad valo¬ 
rem duty have a direct tendency to encourage and promote dishonesty 
among Government officials and importers alike. Since the advent of 
high ad valorem rates, the honest American merchant has gradually 
been driven out of the mercantile arena, and in his place has sprung 
up the American agent of the foreign manufacturer. Instead of actual 
purchases, consignments are the rule. The only competition among 
these agents appears to be that of undervaluation. 

Having had several years’ experience in appraising leather gloves at 
this port, and knowing, as I do, the tenacity of the foreign manufact- 
uerer and his agent in this country with which they endeavor to de¬ 
fraud the revenue, I unhesitatingly state that, in my judgment, specific 
rates should be levied upon this commodity. I feel fully convinced that 
the contest between the appraising officers and the importers will not 
cease until this desirable change is consummated. If desired, I would 
be pleased to present for your consideration a specific rate of duty on 
leather gloves which I believe would not only be practicable, but as 
equitable as any specific rate could be. 

Specific rates could be applied to all textile fabrics, but it would un> 
doubtedly discriminate in favor of the rich as against the poor. If 
duty were to be assessed per pound, the cheap heavy goods would pay 
more duty relatively per value than the light and expensive goods; 
if duty were levied upon the square yard, the discrimination would 
still exist. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. C. LESEUK, 
Examiner , Fifth Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


764 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 17B. 


F. J. BURKE—Appointed Examiner August 1, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 18, 1885. 

Dear Sir : Your circular letter requesting information as to the car¬ 
rying out of the customs laws has been received, and in reply thereto 
1 would state that my opinion would hardly be entitled to much weight, 
as my experience in examining goods is limited, having only been ap¬ 
pointed about six weeks ago. 

Kespectfullv, yours, 

F. J. BURKE. 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 177. 


G. LANDSMANN—Appointed Examiner July 13, 1883. 


New York, September 21, 1885. 


Sir : I respectfully acknowledge receipt of circular of September 9, 
requesting answers to certain questions. I beg leave to reply that my 
position as sugar examiner in the United States laboratory connected 
with the appraiser’s office at this port prevents me from acquiring in¬ 
formation which would enable me to answer them. 

I remain, dear sir, verv respectfully, yours. 

G. LANDSMANN. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 1). C. 


No. 178. 


B. 1). C. FOSKETT—Appointed Examiner July 18, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 21, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to confidential circular recently received by me, and 
containing questions relating to the customs department, I have to say 
that I have held my position but two months, and that my duties are 
those belonging to position of sugar examiner, and have been outside 
the appraiser’s office and on the docks; that during that time I have 
had nothing to do with passing invoices or the collection or levying of 
duties, and that I am unable to answer questions relating to those subjects 
from my oWn personal experience, and, likewise, questions relating to 
customs affairs of the last few years. In fact, my experience will not 
warrant my attempting to answer any of the questions of said circular. 
Regretting my inability to answer them, and expressing my readiness 
to answer any relating to duties of my position. 

I am, respectfully, yours, 

B. D. C. FOSKETT, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


765 


No. 179. • 

B. D. C. FOSKETT—Appointed Examiner July 15, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 3, 1885. 

Sir; I tusk leave to supplement my answer to the confidential circu¬ 
lar received by me some time ago by answering Question No. 12. My 
opinion is that the examiner is responsible tor the return of value, as 
he is supposed to be an expert in the class of goods over which he has 
charge, and examines and appraises theii* value. 1 believe this is the 
case in most kinds of goods. In case of raw sugars, where the rate of 
duty is determined by a chemical test, the examiner in charge of sam¬ 
pling is not responsible. In certain grades of raw sugar above No. 13, 
Dutch standard, the sugar examiner is responsible, so that, with a few 
exceptions, my opinion is as above. Salary of examiner is from $1,800 
to $2,500 per year. 

I am, verv respectfully, 

B. D. C.‘ FOSKETT. 

Sugar Examiner , New York. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, I). C. 


No. 180. 

FRED. COCHEN—Appointed Inspector September 5, 1878; Examiner April 9, 1879. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 17, 1885. 

Sir : In answef to your communication, without date, I would re¬ 
spectfully reply that since my appointment as an examiner, until within 
a short time past, I have always been attached to the first division of 
the appraiser’s department, where I have had only damaged goods to 
examine; consequently, I am unable to answer but few of your in¬ 
quiries intelligently. 

In answer to No. 12, I should say decidedly that an examiner is, and 
should be, held responsible for a false return. As to No. 9, I would 
respectfully refer you to the testimony given by me to Treasury Agent 
Spalding, on or about May 1, 1885. 

I am, verv respectfully, &c., 

FRED. COCHEN, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning. 


No. 181. 

PETER A. HEPBURN—Appointed Examiner August 1, 1885. 

District No. 3, Eighth Division, 

Brooklyn, September 21, 1885. 

Dear Sir : I have carefully read the twenty-four inquiries above, 
and fail to see wherein I can suggest any alteration, advice, or sugges¬ 
tions with the exception of No. 24, in this : It is my opinion that, did 




766 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the law serious^ punish the officials concerned therein, and not the im¬ 
porter, there would be less attempt at offering bribes, as the punish¬ 
ment being exclusively on the official, he would be so watchful that no 
tampering would be attempted with him, as he would then be in the 
power of the tempter. 

Yours, very truly, 

PETER A. HEPBURN, 
Examiner , Eighth Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington. D. C. 


No. 182. 

FRED’K B. BIELING—Appointed Examiner August 1, 1885. 

New York, September 15, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to circular marked “strictly confidential, 7 ’ I herewith 
respectfully submit my opinions on the subjects referred to. As I have 
only recently been appointed to the position I hold, (examiner of china, 
pottery, and glass ware,) I cannot answer some of the questions, and 
some perhaps only imperfectly: 

Nos. 1 to 5. I have no knowledge regarding matters treated in these 
questions. 

6. Judging from the very great delay in trying suits growing out of 
decisions by collectors and the Treasury, it appears to me that there 
ought to be established one or more courts of claims to try customs cases 
only; such court to consist of an equal number of law and lay judges, 
and the verdict of this court, if unanimous , to be final ; if not, either 
party to have the right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 
This court should be able to reach and settle cases brought before it 
within thirty days, whereas now some suits, which could be, if brought 
to trial , decided in an hour, are pending for three or four years. 

7. I could not furnish proof of the correctness of my firm belief that 
for many years goods in the line I am familiar with (china and glass 
ware, &c.) have been regularly and systematically undervalued by 
some firms, wTio have consequently been able to undersell all their 
competitors. 

8. The failure to collect proper duties on goods paying ad valorem 
duties has, in my opinion, resulted in most cases from the ignorance 
and utter incompetency of some of the examiners, who were gener¬ 
ally appointed for political reasons only, and some of whom, at least, 
had no knowledge whatever of the value of the goods they were to ex¬ 
amine, and could not even read the invoices, (made out in foreign lan¬ 
guages,) much less, of course, determine whether they were correct or 
false. 

9. I have no evidence that the appraisers have reported false dutiable 
values to the collector. 

I consider it of the utmost importance to have the special agents of 
the Treasury act in constant support of the examiners —furnish them 
with whatever data they may gain as to the state of the foreign markets, 
suspicious circumstances in regard of particular manufacturers or im¬ 
porters on certain lines of goods, results of reappraisements at other 
ports, &c. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 767 

10. There does not seem to exist any doubt at present in the apprais¬ 
er’s department regarding the elements of dutiable values, excepting in 
the case of importers who are manufacturers of the goods they import. 
In that case there ought to be a careful consideration by the Treasury, 
and a rule laid down for the guidance of the examiners. In a case of 
this kind brought to reappraisement, which resulted in separate re¬ 
ports by the merchant appraisers and general appraiser, the collector 
has just sustained the invoice , thus virtually allowing the importer the 
right to fix his own dutiable value, irrespective of market value. 

11. I do not think any safe average estimate can now be made of the 
undervaluations in the past years. 

12. As the business of the appraiser’s department has been and is 
now conducted, the responsibility for the correct return of dutiable 
values lies solely with the examiner, as he is the only one who sees the 
goods and fixes values. The assistant appraisers in charge of the several 
divisions may, perhaps, be consulted on questions of rates, on con¬ 
struction of the tariff or a decision, but usually simply countersign the 
return of the examiner—a mere matter of form. 

The salary of examiner is $1,800, which is far too low for a man who 
understands his business, as he can in a mercantile establishment usually 
command about double that amount. 

13 and 14. I cannot answer these questions. 

15. The greatest care exercised in the selection of examiners, the 
paying of a good salary to a good man, the assurance of permanency of 
position during good behavior and honest performance of duty, irre¬ 
spective of any political changes, and the constant supervision by the 
special agents will do much to prevent the yielding to bribery by 
examiners. 

16. It seems impossible to change the ad valorem duties on china 
and glass ware to specific duties, as it would seem to be manifestly un¬ 
fair to exact the same amount of duty on a teacup costing ten cents as 
on one costing ten dollars. To divide and arrange these goods in classes 
would still leave the matter a question of values. 

17. A modification of the law, allowing customs officers or special 
agents at times a reasonable inspection of any importer’s books in cases 
of doubt or suspicious circumstances, would seem very desirable, and 
would, probably, in a great many cases, act as a check upon dishonest 
importers and a quick (harmless, if innocent) remedy to discover if an 
entry is true or false. 

18. It would be impracticable to verify the correctness of invoice 
values by the consular officers abroad, as they could not possibly see 
the goods; but it appears to me very necessary to revise the instructions 
given to consuls in regard to certification of invoices, as at present the 
system is very loose and of no value whatever to the United States Gov¬ 
ernment. 

The manufacturer of the goods should, in every case where the goods 
are bought from the maker, be compelled to swear to the correctness 
of his invoice. At present, at the consulates in Dresden or Prague, 
&c., one person acts as a duly authorized agent to any one who sends him 
an invoice and $3.50 or so for fees, and swears, of course, that the in¬ 
voice is correct and true, although he may not know anything whatever 
about the maker or the goods. 

Whenever it can be shown (which sometimes Is not very difficult) 
that a foreign manufacturer has deliberately sworn to a false invoice, 


7()8 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

his government should be requested to proceed against him for perjury. 
An example of this kind would be very valuable. 

19. In my opinion, it would not be safe to give power to the Treasury 
or judiciary to set aside or interfere with decisions of the appraiser’s 
department respecting dutiable values. The present system of appeal 
from the finding of the appraiser regarding values is satisfactory, but 
it should be perfected by having more than one general appraiser 
acting, as at present it takes at least two weeks to reach a reappraise¬ 
ment, and many are postponed even when date is fixed. Greater care 
in the selection of merchant appraisers is also necessary to protect the 
revenue. 

20. 1 cannot answer this question. 

21. To stop the universal and proverbial present custom of bribing 
customs inspectors by arriving passengers, it would be very difficult 
to devise a better plan than the concentration furnished by the New 
York barge office; and it seems a great mistake to yield to newspaper 
clamor for its practical abolishment. 

22. Lower rates of duty would probably, in many cases, take away 
the incentive to defraud the revenue by false invoices. 

23. I cannot answer this question. 

24. It seems to have been the custom to simply dismiss a dishonest 
official when found, instead of punishing him, though why this should 
be so I am not able to say. 

Very respectful lv, 

FEED. B. BIELING, 
Examiner, Second Division , Appraiser's Dept. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 183. 


A. C. DUTCHER—Appointed Sampler January 12, 187S: Clerk June 13, 1879 ; Ex¬ 
aminer March 27, 1882. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 24, 1885. 

Sir: Respectfully referring to Department’s printed communica¬ 
tion, undated, containing a series of twenty-four inquiries regarding 
the administration and condition of the customs service at this and 
other prominent ports of entry, I have the honor to submit the follow¬ 
ing, comprising, ad seriatim, what pertinent information it has been 
possible for me to acquire in my official position: 

No. 1.—I have no evidence showing that the prescribed rates of duty 
have not been properly levied and collected. 

No. 2.—The class of merchandise of which I have the examination 
and appraisal comprises no goods subject to specific rates of duty, and, 
consequently, I have no knowledge as to whether or not the proper 
amounts have been collected. 

No. 3.—4 n the usual course of custom-house business, the widths 
of textile fabrics are invariably ascertained and reported and when 
there is the slightest reason for believing the invoiced lineal measure¬ 
ment incorrect, that also is accurately ascertained. The standard of 
measurement applied consists of the ordinary yard-stick, the metre 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 769 


stick, and the anne stick, or tape, all of which are supplied officially 
by the Department. In certain classes of goods it is customary to 
verify lineal measurements by weighing. 

No. 4.—I have no evidence showing collusion between persons mak¬ 
ing entry of merchandise and deputy collectors or entry clerks in 
sending false or bogus packages to the appraiser for examination. As 
I understand the present mode of procedure, it appears almost im¬ 
possible that such collusion could occur. 

No. 5.—I know nothing whatever of weights or measurements taken 
on the wharves, as my official experience has been confined solely to 
examinations at the public stores. 

No. 6.—Regarding rates of duty and differences arising between im¬ 
porters and collectors, I regard the existing law, if properly adminis¬ 
tered, as fully competent. 

I have no knowledge of the number, present condition, or classifi¬ 
cation of suits now pending at the ports named. 

I consider the existing law regarding the payment of interest as part 
of the “ damages,’ 7 &c., to be equitable, but think that much unneces¬ 
sary delay could be avoided by a system providing for a more prompt 
termination of such litigation. 

In my opinion, a separate tribunal would greatly facilitate reform 
in this direction, and not only be a relief to importers, but would also 
be the means of saving considerable labor on the part of Government 
officials in the matter of reconsidering and reclassifying invoices cov¬ 
ering merchandise of same character as that involved in suit. 

Nos. 7 and 8.—I am not familiar with the result of the recent customs 
investigations, and am in the possession of no facts “ susceptible of 
proof” showing that the Department has failed in recent years to col¬ 
lect the full duty prescribed by law. 

No. 9.—I have no conclusive evidence tending to show that the ap¬ 
praising officers at this and other ports have reported false dutiable 
values. 

As regards evidence supplied by special agents of the Treasury, I 
believe that such evidence has oftentimes been obtained by them from 
interested or prejudiced sources, and that, consequently, it is frequently 
unreliable and not borne out by subsequent investigation. 

Special agents are not, as a rule, experts in any class of merchandise, 
and what knowledge they possess is derived wholly from information. 
I believe, therefore, that, however earnest and sincere they may be in 
the pursuit and detection of frauds upon the revenue, they are often 
misled by false and exaggerated statements on the part of interested 
informers. 

As between the values claimed by special agents' and those fixed by 
appraising officers at this port, in nearly all cases that have come under 
my observation, where such respective values indicated a conflict of 
opinion, a full and careful investigation has sustained the values fixed 
by the experts in this department. 

1 No. 10.—With the exception of certain “charges,” as to the liability 
of which to assessment of duty there now exists a difference of opinion 
among both importers and officials, I know of no “confusion, doubt, 
or conflict of opinion” among the officers of this department respect¬ 
ing the elements to be ascertained in fixing market or dutiable values. 
The law upon this point seems to me perfectly clear and readily con¬ 
strued, and I can see no cause for differences of opinion. 

49 A 


770 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


As regards tlie charges referred to, the Department has already in¬ 
dicated the course of action to be adopted, and the legality of its ruling 
can only be questioned by resort to the courts. 

No. 11.—I know of no method by which the average percentage of 
undervaluation for any year, or series of years, can be ascertained, or 
the merchandise or invoices identified. 

No. 12.—In the usual course of business, I regard the examiner as 
primarily and solely responsible for returns of values to the collector. 
He is the only official who, except in special cases and for special rea¬ 
sons, personally inspects the merchandise under examination. 

The salaries of examiners at this port range from $1,800 to $2,500 
per annum. 

The appraiser and assistant appraisers are not ordinarily “experts,” 
and their functions are purely of an executive character. Their re¬ 
ports of values are, except in rare instances, based upon those of the 
examiners. 

No. 13.—I know of no such evidence. 

No. 14.—I do not believe that false returns have been “habitually 
and systematically ” reported to collectors by appraising officers. In¬ 
stances may have occurred where the law has not been faithfully exe¬ 
cuted, and the full amount of duty consequently not collected; but I 
do not think that such failure has, except in comparatively very few 
cases, come of dishonesty, or been accompanied by guilty knowledge 
on the part of officials. I know of no case where money has been paid 
to obtain false reports of dutiable values. 

In my opinion, whatever undervaluation may have existed has 
arisen chiefly from the employment by the Government of incompetent 
and inexperienced men as expert examiners. 

No. 15.—If false valuations have been brought about by bribery or 
venality, I have no reason to think that a continuation of such prac¬ 
tices is improbable, unless human nature should undergo a sudden and 
radical change. 

No. 16.—While a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty 
might diminish the tendency to bribery, I do not regard it as a sover¬ 
eign cure, as the opportunities for fraudulent reports of weights and 
measurements would be nearly as great as those now existing respect¬ 
ing values. Owing to the large range in character, uses, material, and 
value covered by textile fabrics, I do not deem it practicable to estab¬ 
lish an equitable system of specific rates of duty independent of the 
question of value. Such rates can, of course, be applied, but what esti¬ 
mates I have been able to form lead me to believe that, whatever basis 
may be adopted, injustice will inevitably accrue to both importers and 
consumers, with nd compensating benefit to the Government. 

No. 17.—I do not think that false reports by the appraising officers 
have been increased by the legislation of 1874; and I believe the rev¬ 
enue to be as fully protected now as when the “ moiety law” and the 
act of 1863 referred to were in full force. 

No. 18.—I do not regard it practicable, in the consular districts 
named, for consuls or agents to personally examine articles to be 
shipped to American ports or to verify the correctness of invoiced 
values, except to a very limited extent. I know of no consular district 
where this could be accomplished without a largely increased force 
and great incidental delay, and think it highly probable that any such 
course on the part of this Government would be the cause of numerous 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 771 


complaints. The consul and notary fees in Great Britain are, respect¬ 
ively, 10s. Gd. and 4s. Gd., aggregating 15s. sterling. 

No. 19.—I regard it as neither safe, useful, nor just to confer upon 
either the executive or the judiciary the power to interfere with the 
ascertainment of market or dutiable values of merchandise. The ap¬ 
praising officers should be selected for their competency, experience, 
and reliability, and, being the only personal inspectors of merchan¬ 
dise, should be held wholly responsible for any failure to report mer¬ 
chandise at its correct value. 

No. 20.—I have had no experience whatever in the examination or 
classification of wool. 

No. 21.—I know of no instance where money has been paid by arriv¬ 
ing passengers to customs inspectors of baggage. Should such a prac¬ 
tice prevail, the only remedy that suggests itself is to provide by law 
severe penalties for such infractions of duty, and enforce them promptly 
and impartially. 

No. 22.—-On no goods with which I am familiar has the rate been 
carried by Congress beyond a line that can be readily protected by 
the Government. 

No. 23.—I have no knowledge .of the conduct of the customs service 
at any other port than New York. 

No. 24.—I do not know. 

Very respectfully submitted. 

A. C. DUTCHER, 
Examiner , Fourth Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 184. 

L. B. CARHART—Appointed September 3, 1879. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 25, 1885. 

Dear Sir : In reply to your circular letter, received on the 9th in¬ 
stant, marked “personal” and “strictly confidential,” asking replies 
to certain inquiries, I submit my answers, hastily prepared under a 
pressure of official duties, this being the busiest season of the year. 

I shall write frankly and without reserve, in the 41 confidential ’ ’ spirit 
of your communication, believing that this is my duty, both as a citizen 
and an officer, and that only so can I contribute to that full and accurate 
knowledge of the situation which will help you to carry on to success 
the great work which you have undertaken. 

As my official connection with this department will not probably 
continue much longer, I shall write with more freedom than I might 
otherwise have felt at liberty to do, but I ask you to receive my assur¬ 
ance that I have no other motive than a desire for the public good and 
the success of your administration. 

My connection with this department dates from September 1, 1879, 
consequently my knowledge of its affairs follows that date. As the 
examiner of French worsted dress-goods since that time, I have had 
accurate knowledge only of that branch and its collaterals. 

1. I believe that the rates of duty prescribed by law on my line of 
goods have been and are collected in full. 



772 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20, and 21. As to these questions, I have no 
official knowledge and but little personal acquaintance with the sub¬ 
jects. 

3. There are no facilities provided for verifying lengths of textile 
fabrics in the appraiser’s stores; widths are carefully examined. Any 
systematic verification of lengths would involve a considerable increase 
of the labor force, and would require more intelligent labor than is 
usually found now among the men employed on kindred work. 

When I have had reason to suspect disagreements with the invoice 
measurements, I have myself measured the goods by hand, but, except 
in a few cases of manifest error without fraudulent intent, I have not 
found any disagreements. An invoice which was reported to me by a 
special agent as a case of fraudulent overmeasure was carefully tested, 
and the goods found to agree exactly with the ticket-marks and invoice. 

I have no reason to think that the Government has suffered any se¬ 
rious loss in this direction, and yet I think that provision for occasional 
testing of measurement of lengths, under intelligent supervision, would 
be healthful in its effect. 

6. I think that some of the manifest errors in decisions by the De¬ 
partment at Washington on appeals from classifications would have 
been avoided if the Assistant Secretary making the decisions had been 
located in New York, where he could see the goods under considera- 
sion and hear from the appraising officer the reasons for his classifica¬ 
tion. The letters which have reached the Department have not always 
stated the facts clearly, as a few moments of personal observation would 
have shown. As a consequence, there have been contradictory de¬ 
cisions and reversals, which have led to confusion, delay, and probably 
to litigation. 

9. I do not think that purchased goods in my line are often falsely 
invoiced, but on all dutiable goods sent to this country by foreign 
makers and owners consigned to agents for sale there is need of especial 
and constant supervision. The sharp competition of trade compels 
these men to keep the cost of their goods at the place of sale as low as 
possible, and, as many of these manufacturers sell no goods in their 
home markets, they claim to have but scant means for knowing their 
own lowest market value 5 hence their efforts to find the lowest u dutiable 
value” here by experimental invoices, and also hence the urgent need 
of the very best expert service which the Government can procure to 
determine that dutiable value. 

Special agents cannot, of course, be trained experts in all lines of 
merchandise, and therefore, except in cases of gross fraud, their judg¬ 
ment of value must be superficial. 

10. There is, I think, and probably always has been, more or less 
of conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s department on the subject of 
market value, which is an essential element of dutiable value. Some 
have held that the fact of purchase, at whatever date, ought, in justice, 
to be conclusive, but the law explicitly confutes this view by fixing the 
date of shipment for appraisement; others have thought that about 
an average between the highest and lowest prices paid by different 
buyers should fix dutiable value, &c. 

The place and time of appraisement has been plainly defined by law, 
but I think the standard of value is not clearly stated, and Department 
decisions and instructions are obscure or conflicting. My own opinion 
is that the true measure of market value is the lowest price at which 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 773 


a given article is purchased (not offered ) at a fixed date in the open 
market, at wholesale, for cash or first-rate credit, and in the condition 
in which the goods are to be offered for sale here. This fixes a minimum 
of value for duty, and I think cannot work injustice to any legitimate 
interest. An explicit official statement of such a standard would con¬ 
tribute to uniformity of action. 

12. With so large and varied a business as that of the appraiser’s 
department in New York, the subdivision of examination is inevitable, 
and capable men become specialists and experts on comparatively short 
lines, and the sharp competition of this city’s great business calls for 
the finest distinctions to be carefully and intelligently drawn. 

Of course no man is, or can be, well acquainted with fabrics or values 
in several lines of goods; therefore the examiner, and not the assist¬ 
ant appraiser nor the appraiser, is held finally responsible on all ques¬ 
tions of value, and mainly on all questions of original classification. 

The salaries fixed by the present law, section 2745, are 4 ‘ not to exceed 
$2,500 per annum, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. ’ ’ 
The salaries paid are, I think, from $1,600 to $2,500. My own salary 
is $2,000 per annum. 

The appraiser and assistant appraisers do not, in the ordinary course 
of business, so far as my experience goes, assume any responsibility 
for values. They are occupied with the general administration of the 
affairs of the department, offioial correspondence, &c. Their functions 
are about like those of the head of a large mercantile house, and they 
should be men in the prime of life, well acquainted with current 
business affairs and customs. 

15. In connection with questions 15 and 12, possibly in extension of 
their letter, but in their spirit and intent as I understand them, I ven¬ 
ture to remark that false valuations and the generally defective admin¬ 
istration of the customs laws, which have caused so much dissatisfaction 
among business men, are largely due to the low standard of selection of 
officers which has heretofore obtained. 

In the appraiser’s department in New York there are, and long have 
been, men nominally doing clerical work, where really competent 
clerks are much needed, who are unfit both in capacity and habits for 
their duties. Where a good $1,200 or $1,400 clerk is needed, two 
openers and packers or messengers are detailed to bungle the work 
or do it reluctantly. 

There are examiners appraising merchandise upon which millions of 
dollars in duties are collected annually, whose judgment of values 
would not be relied on for small amounts in private business. There 
are others whose personal habits unfit them for effective duty, even if 
they were intelligent and capable. 

There are but few trained experts—men who havi3 brought to the 
service that experience in the line of their work which alone gives real 
knowledge of fabrics; and the wonder is, not that there are so few such 
men, but that under the system of selection there are any. Some of 
the best examiners no w in the service are men who have, perhaps at 
serious cost to the Government, acquired in the service a certain knowl¬ 
edge of fabrics, values, and the customs laws, and they are useful men. 
But the system is radically, defective. In no department of the Gov¬ 
ernment are purely business methods more needed than in the apprais¬ 
er’s department. The whole standard of the service should be raised; 
mien should be employed in that service for which they are appointed 
and paid. 


774 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Good clerks, capable and industrious, are much needed, and they 
can be had for the salaries allowed for clerks, $1,200 to $1,600 per an¬ 
num, but they cannot be found among the messengers or openers and 
packers, at $700 to $900. But perhaps while ex-Presidents and Sena¬ 
tors are willing to exert their power to perpetuate this condition, as 
they have done, it cannot be entirely corrected. You can, however, 
with knowledge of the facts, act intelligently. 

I believe that every careful observer who has become well acquainted 
with the working of the customs laws has reached the conclusion that 
the pivotal point upon which success or disaster depends is the ap¬ 
praising officer or examiner. If his work is intelligently and faithfully 
done, the collection of the revenue is thereafter a routine matter of 
mainly clerical work, and comparatively easy. The result is, the Gov¬ 
ernment receives its full revenue, legitimate commerce has a fair field 
for its competition, and domestic industries have the protection which 
the law makers contemplated. 

To obtain this kind of service, the Government, having a much larger 
interest involved than any merchant can have, can well afford to do 
what that merchant does in seeking like service—get the best equipped 
that can be found, and pay him adequately for his services. This, with 
with a reasonable security of tenure, would obtain a professionally ex¬ 
pert service of high character, and worthy of the interests involved. 

19. The law now fixes the entire responsibility for dutiable values 
upon the appraiser’s department, and I do not see how it can be safely 
placed elsewhere; but, as I have said, the necessity for a general ele¬ 
vation of that department is, and long has been, urgent, and there is 
no reform in the customs service or elsewhere which would give greater 
satisfaction to the business men of New York. 

16. If the amount of revenue and the facility of collection are alone 
considered, no doubt purely specific duties are better than ad valorem. 

But I think it safe to say that no revenue law can long keep its place 
on the statute-books which is not, at least approximately, just and 
equal in its distribution of the burden of taxation. Any system of 
specific or compound duties upon textiles must of necessity bear un¬ 
evenly upon the consumers, who are the great body of our people, levy¬ 
ing the heaviest tax upon the cheapest goods, and so laying the heaviest 
burden upon the tax payer least able to bear it. This fact is shown 
more plainly in the report upon Department letter of June 29, which 
I have made to the appraiser, with samples of goods appended, a copy 
of which I enclose herewith. The samples sent to the appraiser are 
especially interesting in connection with the results shown. 

I believe the best system of duties upon these goods to be purely ad 
valorem, a single rate for all such goods “made wholly or in part of 
wool, worsted,” *&c., except such as have silk in chief value, which 
should go with silk manufactures. The effect of this would be to some¬ 
what reduce the duties upon low grades of goods, to advance it upon 
those of higher cost, and to absolutely equalize it upon all. Another 
result would be to enlarge the range of domestic manufactures now 
confined to the cheaper and poorer grades of goods. 

The ad valorem, if a moderate one, say about 50 per cent., would not 
prove a bounty upon dishonesty, and could be collected in full. 

22. I do not think it would be practicable for consular officers to as¬ 
certain accurately market values and certify to them at the place of 
shipment, for the reasons suggested by the form of your question. 


report of the secretary of the treasury. 


775 


I sincerely regret the length of this communication, which I have 
not had time to cnt down. It I have added nothing to your informa¬ 
tion on these subjects, I have at least answered your questions with 
candor and frankness, and an appreciation of the difficulties of the 
situation. 

I am, sir, yours, very respectfully, 

L. B. CABHAET, 

Examiner of French Woollen Dress- Goods , Sixth Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


French u All Worsted Dress-GoodsSchedule K, par. 365 . 


Trade name. 


Nun’s veiling. 

Do. 

Do. 

Cashmere. 

Do... 

Satin berber..'. 

Cashmere de l’Inde. 

Croise, or imitation cashmere 
de l’lnde. 

Do. 

Cashmere. 

Do. 


Sample number. 

Per metre. 



nr* 

'3 

> 

Price. 

Discount. 

Width. 

Present duty. 

Ad-valorem e< 
alent. 

Square-yard e< 

alent. 

Per-pound eqi 

lent. 

8 

Francs and 
centimes. 
0.92% 

Per cent. 

5 

Jns» 

38% 

9 c. per sq. yd. 

Pr. ct. 
102 

30 15 

31 05 

9 

1.80 

8 

48% 

and 40 pr. ct. 
.do. 

81% 

17% 

1 05 

10 

5.10 

8 

48 

.do. 

54% 

34 

2 01% 
92% 

11 

0.92% 

5 

35 

.do. 

96% 

15% 

12 

1.65 

6 

38% 

.do. 

75 

19% 

4 

2 42% 

13 

1.55 

5 

39 


77% 

18% 

14 

9.00 

6 

47% 

.do. 

48 

54% 

15 

1.25 

12 

41 

35 c. per sq. yd. 

103 

17% 

57% 

16 

9.50 

6 

47% 

and 40 pr. ct. 
.do. 

51% 

62 

1 54% 

17 

2.70 

2 

47 

.do. 

66% 

23% 

88 

18 

4.50 

2 

47 

.do. 

58 

34% 

1 12 


French “Part Worsted Dress-GoodsSchedule K, par. 365 . 



Sample number. 

Per metre. 



1 

> 

'3 

o' 

> 

’3 

1 

c3 

> 

Trade name. 

Price. 

Discount. 

Width. 

Present duty. 

Ad-valorem e< 
alent. 

• 

j Square-yard e< 
alent. 

Per-pound eq 
lent. 

Satin berber. 

1 

Francs and 
centimes. 
1.40 

Per cent. 
13 

Ins. 

39 

5 c. per sq. yd. 

Pr. ct. 
60 

30 12 

30 58% 

Cashm^r^ . 

2 

0.90 

6 

35 

and 35 pr. ct. 

65 

10% 

20% 

59 

Melange.. 

* 3 

2.45 

10 

41 

7 c.per sq.yd. 

60% 

50% 


4 

4.00 

12 

21% 

22% 

19 

and 40 pr. ct. 

46% 

43% 

42 

48% 

83% 

1 69 

1 57 


5 

9.75 

2, 2%, and 
16. 

3 


1 85% 

2 64 


6 

12.50 



F 

5 00 

5 

47 


51 

32% 

22% 

82 

Same cloth as above not em- 


1.95 

5 

47 

9 c. per sq. yd. 

85% 

65% 

broidered, (all worsted.) 





and 40 pr. ct. 





It has been found impossible to present clearly the peculiar features 
of the present duty on dress-goods with the samples which, numbered 



















































































776 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

as referred to, pertain to this report and are held for reference. As 
will be seen, the ad-valorem equivalent varies with each change of 
price, weight, or width. 

The samples have been carefully selected as types of the wide vari¬ 
ations under the four several rates of duty. 

The present specific duty varies from 2 per cent., on sample 6 , to 63 
Tier cent., on sample 15. 

L. B. CARH ART, 

Examiner. 


No. 185. 


WM. D. CRUMBIE—Appointed Examiner July 13, 1883. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 26, 1885. 

Sir : Bespectfully referring to undated confidential circular, asking 
answers to twenty-four (24) inquiries, I have the honor to state that 
my duties as a chemist (with the rank of examiner) in the United 
States laboratory are of such a nature as do not afford me the opportu¬ 
nity of obtaining official information upon the subjects of these inquiries. 

Believing that official replies only would be of service, I do not feel 
justified in offering mere opinions upon the matters embraced in the 
inquiries. 

Very respectfully, 

WM. D. OEUMBIE, F. C. S., 

Chemist. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 186. 

THEODORE G. MORSE—Appointed Messenger November 1,1880 ; Examiner March 

25, 1884. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 28, 1885. 

Dear Sir : I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of your 
circular of September, 1885. Permit me to say, in reply, that the inter¬ 
rogatories and subjects embraced in the circular are so entirely foreign 
to my knowledge of the same as to preclude me from giving the infor¬ 
mation desired, except as to Inquiry 12. 

My position as examiner in the United States laboratory gives me 
but a limited intercourse with Government officials, their manner of 
procedure and daily intercourse of business. Merchandise and invoices 
are never received in this department of the laboratory. My duties in 
the laboratory are those of an examiner or expert in examining sugar 
by the method known as the polariscopic test. Our samples consist of 
about one pound of sugar, each pound representing one or more hogs¬ 
heads, prepared and placed in cans in the eighth division, or what is 
known as the sugar-room, and are there forwarded to the laboratory 
for the proper test, by making up each sample into a solution, giving to 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 777 

each its proper degree of saccharine contained therein. Returning a 
record of the same to the chemist in charge, our functions with the 
department end. 

In reply to the question embraced in Inquiry 12, I would say that 
the examiner is primarily liable for a false return to the collector, but 
the deputy appraiser is equally culpable in receiving and forwarding 
the same to its proper destination; but this must entail an endless 
amount of work by the deputy appraiser if his actual knowledge is 
required as to the valuation and amount of merchandise represented 
by each invoice. 

The salaries of examiners range from $1,200 to $2,500 per year. 

I trust that it may not be inappropriate to say that no doubt abuses 
exist in the Treasury Department, and that the general sentiment of 
honest officials is for a thorough investigation in every department. 

Very respectfully, 

THEODORE G. MORSE, 
Examiner , United States Laboratory. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 187. 

ROBERT E. BOWNE—Appointed Sampler June 30, 1873; Examiner July 17, 1878. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 28, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your letter asking for such information as I may be 
able to give regarding the customs service at this port, I respectfully 
submit the following: 

My duties are confined to the examination of the following articles: 
Sugar, melado, molasses, cane-sirup, honey, grape-sugar, glucose, and 
confectionery. And as my duties in the classification-room and on the 
wharves keep me constantly employed, it leaves me but little time or 
opportunity to acquaint myself with the other branches of business 
conducted in the department. 

In answer to the first eight inquiries, I would state that, if there has 
been failure to collect the entire and full amount that the law pre¬ 
scribed, such failure has been, in some cases, caused by the complica¬ 
tions of the tariff law, and in others, no doubt, by dishonest officials. 

In answer to Inquiries 9 and 10, I beg to state that the statutes al¬ 
ready define the rules to be observed in the classification of goods. 

In answer to Inquiry 11, I think it would be a very difficult and un¬ 
certain task. 

In answer to Inquiry 12, I would state that the examiner is the re¬ 
sponsible person for a full return. The salaries of such officers range 
from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. The appraiser has to rely upon the 
honesty and capability of the examiner and assistant appraiser. 

In answer to Inquiries 13 and 14, I know of no such evidence. 

Inquiry 15.—I know of no reason. 

Inquiry 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates would be a 
benefit to the revenue and diminish the tendency to bribery. I would 
respectfully suggest specific duties on glucose, grape-sugar, and on all 



778 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


confectionery. The tariff is complicated on confectionery, and at times 
difficult to define; and as to glucose and grape-sugar, we are in doubt 
as to correct values. 

In reply to Inquiry 18, I would state that I do not think it would be 
practicable, as it would cause delays and be the means of causing com¬ 
plaints from foreign governments. 

In reply to Inquiry 19, I do think it would be safe for the executive 
or judicial powers to have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the as¬ 
certainment of dutiable values. 

In reply to Inquiry 21, the practice could be prevented by putting 
honest men in office. 

Inquiry 24.—If such false returns or reports have been made, and the 
officials responsible for such false returns have not been punished, it 
has been because of powerful political influence or a lack of proof to 
indict them. 

Very respectfully, 

EOBT. E. BOWNE, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 188. 

ROBERT RIGNEY—Appointed Examiner July 13, 1883. 

Port of New York, 

Appraiser’s Office, U. S. Laboratory, 

September 28, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter ask¬ 
ing for information respecting ad valorem and specific duties and other 
matters connected with the customs service. 

In reply, permit me to state that my duties as examiner in the United 
States laboratory pertain almost exclusively to the polariscopic examina¬ 
tion of sugars, and that I have no official information respecting any of 
the questions excepting No. 12. 

In the usual course of business the samples of sugar are packed in 
tin boxes, numbered, and transmitted to the laboratory for polariscopic 
examination by the examiner in charge of the sugar-room, in the eighth 
division. The sample is known by the number on the box, and I have 
no information respecting the importer, invoice, or the size of the 
shipment. It is then submitted to an examination, and the result 
duly certified and transmitted to the examiner in charge of the sugar- 
room, in the eighth division. 

At this point my information and connection with the sample ceases, 
and I have no means of knowing officially that the classification as 
found by the polariscopic examination is the same as that sent to the 
collector. I believe that the salary of the examiner in charge of the 
sugar-room is $2,500 per annum. 

Very respectfully, 

EOBEET EIGNEY, 
Examiner , TJ. S. Laboratory . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. G. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 779 


No. 189. 


GEORGE C. T. SEAMAN—Appointed Examiner August 12, 1882. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 28, 1885. 


Sir : I respectfully annex answers to your circular, received some 
days since, as full and complete as I have been able to do, and which 
will, I hope, prove satisfactory. 

Respectfully, yours, 

GEO. C. T. SEAMAN, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , .D. C. 


1. Not to my knowledge. 

2. Not to my knowledge. 

3. By measurement and count. 

4. Not to my knowledge. 

5. Am not competent to judge; my duties are entirely in the office. 

6. Should think the existing law required amending. Cannot tell 
how many suits are now pending in the cities named, or how many 
are ready for trial; and am unable to answer the other questions asked, 
having no knowledge of them. 

7. Do not know. 

8. Know of no evidence of a guilty knowledge among the officers of 
the Treasury or custom-house. 

9. Know of no such report having been made by the appraiser. 

10. Not to my knowledge. 

11. Do not think so. 

12. The examiner. The salaries are from $1,800 to $2,500. The 
assistant appraiser certifies to the correctness of the examination as to 
values, &c., of the examiner, and which then goes to the appraiser. 

13. Not to my knowledge. 

14. Have no knowledge of any such. 

15. Am unable to give a definite and correct answer. 

16. Do not think so. 

17. Have no knowledge that such is the case. 

18. Am unable to tell. 

19. Am unable to give correct information as to the questions asked. 

20. Am unable to tell. 

21. Do not think the practice generally prevails of paying officers to 
avoid the payment of duties, and have no knowledge that such is the 
case, except from reports published in the newspapers. 

22. Do not think so. 

23. Do not think such is the case in New York; on the contrary, 
think all due diligence has been given to enforce and collect the same. 

24. Cannot answer from personal knowledge. 

GEO. 0. T. SEAMAN, 

Examiner , New York. 


780 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 190. 


W. P. MCPHERSON—Appointed Clerk and Verifier April 21, 1873; Examiner October 

19, 1874. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 28, 1885. 

Sir: In answer to your circular, marked “strictly confidential,” I 
have the honor to state that upon Inquiries Nos. 1 to 11 and Nos. 13 
to 24 I am unable to report as to the matters contained therein, not 
being in a position to do so. 

In regard to Inquiry No. 12,1 would state that the examiner is prima¬ 
rily and chiefly responsible for a false return of values to the collector, al¬ 
though under the law it is the duty of the assistant appraiser to appraise 
merchandise, with the aid and assistance of the examiner, but it is 
impossible for an assistant appraiser to be an expert in all the lines of 
goods examined in his division; therefore he has to rely upon the 
knowledge of the examiner who is an expert in the class of goods he 
examines. Thus acting upon the knowledge each examiner possesses, 
the assistant appraiser signs the examiner’s return as to the correctness 
of values to the appraiser, who also certifies the same to the collector. 
The salaries of examiners do not exceed $2,500 per annum. 

Very respectfully, 

wm. p. mcpherson, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 191. 


JOHN A. SHERER—Appointed Examiner December 31, 1879. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , September 29, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your commu¬ 
nication, without date, marked “strictly confidential,” in which cer¬ 
tain questions pertaining to the administration of the customs service 
at this and other ports are propounded. 

In reply, I would state that my position (that of sugar examiner, 
attached to the damage division of the appraiser’s department) pre¬ 
cludes me from intimate knowledge of many of the subjects upon which 
information is sought. The following are the only questions to which 
I am able to give official answers: 

No. 10.—While there is undoubtedly more or less conflict of opinion 
in the appraiser’s department respecting the elements entering into 
dutiable values, the statutes, in my opinion, point out with sufficient 
clearness the place, time, and standard to be applied in determining 
such values. 

No. 12.—The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the 
usual course of business, for a false return of value to the collector. 
The assistant appraiser having charge of the division in which certain 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE* TREASURY. 


781 


goods are examined, with which lie is presumed to be familiar, if not 
an expert in them, and' exercising official control of the examiners 
therein, is also responsible to a certain extent. The salary of an ex¬ 
aminer ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum; that of an assistant 
appraiser is $3,000 per annum. It may be said in behalf of these offi¬ 
cers that it is extremely difficult to find men who are experts in all of 
the different lines of goods which they are called upon to appraise. 
Such a person could easily command double the salary paid by the 
Government in a mercantile house. Respecting the duties of the ap¬ 
praiser, unless he has passed through the different grades of the ser¬ 
vice, and become thoroughly familiar with the regulations, decisions, 
and methods of appraisement, or else is a person of rare and excep¬ 
tional ability, he cannot be “much else ordinarily, or in fact, than one 
who officially certifies to the collector the values reported to him by 
the examiners” and approved by the assistant appraisers. 

No. 16.—In my opinion, a change from ad valorem to specific rates 
of duty would help to diminish a tendency to bribery, and hence be a 
benefit to the revenue, where such a change is practicable. But in many 
kinds of textile fabrics, earthenware, and in various other kinds of 
goods, a change from ad valorem to purely specific rates would exclude 
the cheaper grades of such goods from our markets, and thus work in¬ 
justice to many interests. In many cases, however, the change is en¬ 
tirely practicable, and would result in benefit to the revenue, as above 
stated. 

No. 19.—In reference to this inquiry, so far as my observation and 
experience go, and regarding the Treasury Department as an institu¬ 
tion by itselfi the chief aim of its officers being the interest and con¬ 
servation of the revenue, I deem any interference of the federal judicial 
power with Department decisions as unwise and hurtful. At the same 
time, I believe it would be to the interest of the service if decisions of 
the appraising officersshould be supervised and revised, when necessary, 
by the proper authorities of the Treasury Department. 

In conclusion, I would say, with reference to duties in which I am 
specially interested, that merchant appraisements, so called, as applied 
to the ascertainment of damage occurring on the voyage of importation, 
are, in the main, extremely inexact and inefficient, and, as a rule, re¬ 
sult in injury to the revenue and to the interests of importers who do 
not avail themselves of such proceedings. For instance, when an im¬ 
porter of a particular class of goods., being dissatisfied with the allow¬ 
ance made upon a damaged cargo by the Department, claims a merchant 
appraisement, as he is entitled to do, it rarely happens that the mer¬ 
chant appraiser and the witnesses summoned to examine the damage 
are not themselves interested, or have been, or expect to be interested, 
in similar cases as claimants; hence the decisions and testimony of such 
parties can hardly be unbiassed. It is even sometimes the case that 
the persons officiating are directly interested in the sale of the goods 
under examination. In support of which statement, I respectfully refer 
you to the case of a cargo of rice, imported by Messrs. Carter, Hawley 
& Co., of this city, in the brig “Emulation,” from Batavia, which ar¬ 
rived at this port in the month of April last, and which was duly 
investigated and reported upon by the special agents assigned to this 
district. The allowance for damage in that instance was, in my judg¬ 
ment, exorbitant and unjust. Furthermore, it is naturally impossible 
that the merchant appraiser or the examining witnesses should be 


782 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


sufficiently familiar with the statutes, Department decisions, and regu¬ 
lations governing the ascertainment and estimation of damage to 
enable them to arrive at a just conclusion as contemplated by the law. 
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

JHO. A. SHERER, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Ho. 192. 

J. T. CROOKER—Appointed Examiner January 19, 1865. 

Port of Hew York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 30, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your inquiries, I would respectfully submit the fol¬ 
lowing answers: 

Wo. 1.—I know of no instances where the proper rate of duty has not 
been collected according to law. 

Wo. 2.—Hone whatever to my knowledge. 

Wo. 3.—Measurement, weight, and counting threads. 

Wo. 4.—Hone that I am aware of. 

Wo. 5.-. 

Wo. 6.—My experience is so very limited, I do not feel competent to 
give an opinion. 

Wo. 7.—Ho class of articles, to my knowledge, which has been under 
investigation, has failed to pay the proper rate of duty. 

Wo. 8.—I know of no conspiracy among higher or lower officials for 
the purpose of defrauding the revenue or for personal emoluments. 

Wo. 9.—I have yet to learn that any collusion has existed or does 
exist between the examiner, deputy appraiser, and appraiser in order 
that false entries may be passed correct. 

Wo. 10.—I have heard of no confusion and not enough difference of 
opinion worth mentioning; and to the last question I answer, Yes, sir. 

Wo. 11.—I think not. 

Wo. 12.—First. The examiner. Second. From $1,400 to $2,500 per 
annum. Third. The present appraiser is a practical man in every re¬ 
spect, a long time an examiner himself, and thoroughly qualified for 
the position. 

Wo. 13.—If there is any such evidence, I know nothing of it. 

Wo. 14.—I am ignorant of any such abuses. 

Wo. 15.—I am ignorant of any such abuses. 

Wo. 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific duty, as far as practi¬ 
cable, would in a great measure close the door to fraud, and, in my 
opinion, in the majority of instances be a great improvement. 

Wo. 17.—Ho, sir. 

Wo. 18.—In order to have each invoice from large consular districts 
such as you name verified in relation to values, weights, &c., it would 
seem to necessitate the establishment of an appraiser’s department in 
each district. If the business is honestly and capably transacted at 
our own ports, it must be quite sufficient. . 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 783 


No. 19.—In my opinion, the person best qualified to judge the proper 
dutiable value of goods is the one who is well acquainted with the tariff, 
and, at the same time, is a proper judge of the merchandise in question. 
I do not see what benefit can arise from a change. 

No. 20.—For the wool expert. 

No. 21.—Never having had any experience in this line, I am not pre¬ 
pared to answer. 

No. 22.—It is a foregone conclusion that the higher the rate,the 
greater the inducement to evade it. However, I think the amount the 
United States Government loses by false invoices, smuggling, &c., is 
greatly magnified. 

No. 23.—Am not prepared to answer. 

No. 24.—This is all news to me. I have to say that I am not aware 
of any such practices. 

Yery respectfully, yours, 

J. T. CBOOKER. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 193. 

W. H. TOWNSEND—Appointed Examiuer May 22, 1883. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

U. S. Laboratory, 

402 Washington Street , September 30, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to address you in answer to your circular of 
inquiries, which I received on the 15th instant. My short experience 
in the customs service and the nature of my employment (sugar 
chemist) have not enabled me to reply in an intelligent manner, except 
to the inquiries embraced in Inquiry 12. Permit me to say as follows: 

The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, unless he has 
divided the responsibility by consultation with the deputy appraiser. 
The appraiser, in the ordinary course of business, simply certifies to 
the collector the values fixed and reported to him, if the values therein 
contained meet with his approval; but in case of a disagreement between 
the examiner and deputy appraiser, or between them and the importer 
or his representative, the appraiser can have the case reviewed, and, 
acting in an official manner, render his decision according to the facts 
thereby adduced and the law and Department decisions governing 
such cases. 

The salary of an examiner ranges from $1,200 to $2,500 per annum; 
deputy appraiser, $3,000; appraiser, $4,000 per annum. 

Yery respectfully, 

WM. H. TOWNSEND, 
Examiner . 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary TJ. S. Treasury. 



784 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 194. 

ADONIRAM J. PIERSON—Appointed Examiner February 26, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 22, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to your late circular, without date, received at this 
office 10th instaut, asking for “careful and official replies to the fol¬ 
lowing inquiries ” therein described, the examiner of tea begs leave to 
say (by way of explanation and apology) that during the brief period 
(about six months) since his appointment, and which covers the only 
period whereby he has had opportunity to study or observe, in any 
special sense, the usages, methods, and laws pertaining to customs, ex¬ 
cepting so far as in the discharge of his official under 4 4 the act 7 7 would 
furnish; therefore, for obvious reasons, he will not attempt to reply in 
detail to the various interrogatories covered by the circular, with the 
single exception of and to Interrogatory 12. 

This interrogatory suggests reflections which as an examiner I feel 
some delicacy in expressing. That the examiner in the United States 
appraiser’s department 44 is primarily and chiefly responsible” in a 
very large degree for the correct and practical application of revenue 
law 4 4 in determining the correct valuation of merchandise in respect to 
the assessment of and collection of customs due thereon,” is too apparent 
to any mind at all familiar with the usages and methods well known 
here, and as now practiced, to admit of doubt. 

While the examiner should , and doubtless does in a very general way, 
where any question of doubt arises, refer for advice and instruction to 
the assistant appraiser, and in more especial cases to the appraiser, the 
reports of the examiner are (in a very general icay) confirmed without 
further investigation by the signature of the assistant appraiser, fol¬ 
lowed by the official stamp of the appraiser. 

Instances of irregularities involving questions of reappraisement, 
undervaluations, errors in classification, condition of merchandise in¬ 
volving questions of damage, discrepancies in estimating weights and 
measures, or where any attempts are made in these various ways to 
evade the laws , depend for their discovery, accuracy, and otherwise, 
upon the vigilance, capacity, and integrity of the examiner; and his 
check or initials affixed to the document which releases the merchan¬ 
dise, and so carries it through the department, is the proof , to a large 
degree conclusive and final, that the work has been properly and 
thoroughly done. 

Let it be understood that these observations are made chiefly from 
the stand-point of my personal experience obtained in the discharge 
of my official duties as examiner of teas, which, I am aware, are in 
many respects peculiarly unlike those of the examiners, involving 
questions of valuations for the assessment of duties. I shall be dis¬ 
appointed, however, if they are not corroborated in a large degree by 
those who are doubtless more familiar than myself with the history of 
affairs in the appraiser’s department. 

The compensation of the examiners is $2,500 per annum, maximum. 

Referring to the last clause in Question 12, I will venture to reply, 
ordinarily no; in fact, yes. My observations in respect to this are 
chiefly confined to the administration of the present incumbent. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 785 


The appraiser, if possessed of the proper qualifications, may be , and 
manifestly should be , commander-in-chief of the entire department, on 
the alert to discover dereliction in duty on the part of his subordinates, 
incapacity, indolence, and neglect of every name and kind, any or all 
of which may be overlooked or winked at owing to the inertness, lack 
of courage, or possible incapacity on the part of such official. 

In regard to the present incumbent, I am deeply impressed with the 
conviction that he is “ the right man in the right place. ’ ’ His industry 
and vigilance, together with his familiarity with the appraiser’s de¬ 
partment in all its various ramifications, make him what he is intended 
to be, the head and front of the whole system. 

With reference to Interrogatories 1 to 11 and 13 to 24, my reply is: 
I have no knowledge sufficient to enable me to report intelligent replies. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Yours, very obediently, 

A. J. PIERSON, 
Examiner of Teas. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 195. 

HENRY L. BARDWELL—Appointed Examiner March 29, 1883. 

New York, September 29, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to your confidential circular addressed to me, I re¬ 
spectfully submit to you in the following my views resulting from my 
experience in my department as wool examiner at this port. 

In my practice I have always found the chief trouble in determining 
the rates of duty on wool to be in the ascertaining of the dutiable value 
at the last port of shipment. It is there where the temptation for fraud 
exists. It has very rarely been possible to sustain advances made of 
the value at the last port of shipment in any way commensurate with 
the trouble and annoyance caused to the Government. 

I am of the opinion that a great deal of controversy would be saved 
to the Government, and the temptation for fraud which exists now would 
be removed, if the combination of a specific and an ad valorem duty, 
now in force on wool, should be changed to fixed specific rates. I would 
respectfully propose the following rates for that purpose: 

First class—Clothing-wool: If unwashed, 10 cents per pound; if 
washed, 20 cents per pound; if scoured, 30 cents per pound. 

Second class—Combing-wool: If washed or unwashed, but not 
scoured, 12 cents per pound; if scoured, 36 cents per pound. 

Third class—Carpet-wool: If washed or unwashed, but not scoured, 
3 cents per pound ; if scoured, 9 cents per pound. The rate of 3 cents 
duty per pound which I advocate on all carpet-wools, irrespective of 
value, would be a pretty high rate, I must acknowledge, on the lowest 
grade, while it is a moderate one on the better kinds of carpet-wool; 
yet the object of protection of the wool of domestic growth would not 
suffer by its adoption, since no carpet-wool of any account is grown 
in this country, and the manufacturers of carpets have to look to for¬ 
eign countries for at least 90 per cent, of their requirements of wool. 

50 a 



786 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


In regard to the workings of the tariff since 1860, I would respect¬ 
fully give below copies of them : 

1860: Wool, unwashed, value of 20 cents per pound or less at port 
of exportation, ordinary condition, free; wool on the skins, 15 per cent. 

1863-’64: All wool and hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like ani¬ 
mals, unmanufactured, (exclusive of charges from last port of ship¬ 
ment,) which shall be 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per pound; 
exceeding 12 cents and not exceeding 24 cents, 6 cents per pound j ex¬ 
ceeding 24 cents and not exceeding 32 cents per pound, 10 cents per 
pound, and in addition thereto 10 per cent, ad valorem; exceeding 32 
cents, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. 

1870—Class 1: All clothing-wool the value of which at the last port 
of shipment, excluding charges in such port, shall be 32 cents or less 
per pound, 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent.; the same of greater 
value, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent. Class 2: All combing- 
wools of English blood, and hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like 
animals, excluding charges in port, which shall be 32 cents or less per 
pound, 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; the same 
greater, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. Class 3: 
Carpet-wools, the value at last port of shipment, exclusive of charges 
in such port, shall be less than 12 cents per pound, 3 cents per pound; 
the same greater, 6 cents per pound. Rates double on any of the above 
wool or hair when not imported in the ordinary condition. 

The present wool tariff is a combination of specific and ad valorem 
duties. Class 1: Wool costing 30 cents or less per pound, excluding 
charges, 10 cents per pound; costing over 30 cents per pound, 12 cents. 
Class 2: Combing-wools of English blood, and hair of the alpaca, goat, 
and other like animals, costing under 30 cents, exclusive of charges, 
10 cents per pound; costing over 30 cents, exclusive of charges, 12 
cents per pound. Class 3: Carpet and similar wools, costing under 
12 cents per pound, exclusive of charges, 24 cents per pound; costing 
over 12 cents per pound, exclusive of charges, 5 cents per pound. 

I would also respectfully call your attention to the law as it now ex¬ 
ists in regard to camel’s hair tops and noils being admitted free. Both 
are manufactured from camel’s hair, which is on the free-list, and are 
valuable articles of merchandise, costing per pound as much as the 
same grade of wool. The importation of both are increasing every 
year, and it is my opinion both should pay the same duty as wool of class 
1, as it is used here (and the demand increasing) mixed with fine wool 
for underwear. 

There is another matter which has given rise to considerable conflict 
of opinion—it is the duty on goat-hair. This article, no matter of what 
grade, whether of the common goat or of finer breeds, is dutiable under 
our present tariff under the heading of u combing-wool,” the same as 
the latter— i. e ., at the rate of 10 cents per pound if of the value of 30 
cents per pound or less, or at 12 cents per pound if over 30 cents per 
pound, both in the unsconred state, and at the treble duty if scoured. 
A great deal of goat-hair is only fit for carpet-yarns, and this is the 
case of the hair of the common goat, which is rarely suitable for comb¬ 
ing, while most of it is much too short for that purpose. If all goat- 
hair is to pay the same duty as combing-wool, I would respectfully sug¬ 
gest the propriety of having it brought under a separate heading, so as 
to leave no room for any doubt in that matter. 

In reply to question— 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 787 


12. —“As between the examiner, deputy appraiser, and appraiser, 
which is primarily and chiefly responsible in the usual course of busi¬ 
ness for a false return of value to the collector 1 ?” The examiner. 
“What is the salary of such officer?” $1,800 per annum. “Is the 
appraiser much else, ordinarily and in fact, than one who officially cer¬ 
tifies to the collector the values fixed and reported to him by the ex¬ 
aminers and deputy appraisers?” The appraiser acts in a ministerial 
function only. 

13. —“Is there satisfactory evidence that any Government officials, in 
the consular department or elsewhere, have assisted, or consented to, or 
connived at the presentation to the appraisers of such false evidence 
of foreign values? If so, what officers, when, and how?” I know of 
none. 

16.—I think a specific duty would work advantageous in wool and 
most textile fabrics. 

20.—Answered in papers enclosed. 

Respectfully submitted. 

HENRY L. BARD WELL, 

Wool Examinrr , Sixth Division , Appraiser's Stores. 

Hon. Daniel. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. G. 


No. 196. 

BENJAMIN J. LEVY—Apgointed Examiner May 23, 1870. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 30, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to “strictly confidential,” containing twenty-four 
questions relative to the administration of customs laws, I would re¬ 
spectfully answer as follows: 

1 and 2. None that I am aware of. 

3. These goods not being in my department, cannot answer. 

4 and 5. None to my knowledge. 

6. (1.) Should say “yes.” (2 and 3.) The number I cannot say. 
(4.) Should think there could. (5.) Do not know. (6.) Should say 
11 yes. ’ 7 

*7 and 8. Can specify none. 

9, 10, and 11. I know of none. 

12. (1.) Examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible. (2.) From 
$1,800 to $2,500. (3.) No. 

14. Not to my knowledge. 

15. I am aware of none. 

16. (1.) Yes. (2.) Same answer as to No. 3. 

17. Not that I know of. 

18. (1 and 3.) I should think not. (2.) I do not know. (4.) Think 
it is equal to $2.50. 

19. Possibly, “yes.” 

20. Same answer as to No. 3. 

21. Cannot say. 

22. Not that 1 am aware of. 



788 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


23. Not to my knowledge. 

24. I am not aware that any false returns and reports have been made. 
With much respect, I remain, dear sir, your most obedient servant, 

BENJ. J. LEVY, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 197. 

FRANK ANGEYINE—Appointed Clerk and Verifier January 22, 1877 ; Examiner 

October 1, 1880. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

September 30, 1885. 

Sir : Beferring to your circular requesting answers to certain in¬ 
quiries, I have the honor to transmit herewith such replies as I can 
consistent with my knowledge of the several subjects. 

1. I have no official or other knowledge to the contrary. 

2. The same answer as above will apply to this inquiry. 

3. Where there is, or has been, any reason to question the lineal 
measurement of the textiles under my care, viz., all the English 
women’s and children’s dress-goods, coat-linings, Italians, &c., also 
all the German women’s and children’s dress-goods, also knit goods of 
every description in the j)iece, the correctness of the lengths indicated 
on the tickets, or otherwise, are tested by actual measurement or by 
counting and measuring the folds. I desire to say that in every in¬ 
stance during an experience of several years I have not, as yet, found 
any discrepancy. 

I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer 
Inquiries Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 

10. This inquiry, I think, will include an element of market value 
that has been the cause of a good deal of discussion and doubt in the 
minds of the officials and importers, namely, in the case of my line of 
goods, tillots, under the tariff act of 1883. No confusion has been the 
result as far as I am concerned, as the cost of said tillots has been, and 
are now being, added as an element of market value, under decisions 
and instructions of the Treasury Department. The tariff act of 1883 
does not, in my opinion, clearly define coverings as an element of 
market value, and, therefore, legislation should be had that would set 
at rest any doubt in that regard. 

11. I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer 
this inquiry. 

12. As between the appraiser, deputy appraiser, and examiner, the 
latter, being the expert, “is primarily and chiefly responsible in the 
usual course of business for a false return of values to the collector.” 
Coming continually in contact with values and constantly making 
comparisons, he should and must have the knowledge to discriminate 
between true and false values, and the appraiser and deputy appraiser 
must rely on his fitness and honesty in making proper returns, which 
they must approve of to make legal. It would be impossible for the 
examiner’s superior officers to supervise all returns made to them, as 
their time is fully occupied with the general conduct of the business. 
My compensation is at the rate of $2,000 per annum. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 789 


I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer In¬ 
quiries Nos. 13, 14, and 15. 

16. If bribery was practised, no change of rates of duty would have 
the effect to reduce it. I have no official or other knowledge that such 
practices exist in this department. Without discussing the justice or 
injustice of fixing specific rates of duty on all textiles, I would say 
most certainly such rates could be applied to this class of merchandise. 

17. My impression is that there has been less false reports of values 
to the collector since 1874, and I attribute it to the better qualifica¬ 
tions and industry of the supervising officials. 

I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer In¬ 
quiry No. 18. 

19. Having in my mind the subject-matter of the first clause of this 
inquiry, I think any further complication of jurisdiction would result 
in still greater confusion. 

I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer In¬ 
quiries Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. 

Very respectfully, 

FRANK ANGEYINE, 
Examiner , Fifth Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of Treasury. 


No. 198. 

HENRY HOLTHAUSEN—Appointed Examiner May 18, 1885. 

New York, September 30, 1885. 

Dear and Respected Sir : In answer to your confidential circular 
(received on the 9th instant) I beg to state that I have been appointed 
-on the 18th of May last for six months as expert examiner in the third 
division of the appraiser’s office here, and that my special duty is to 
analyze such silk goods as are handed to me by the regular examiner 
for analyzation, and to calculate the exact cost of manufacturing thereof 
in Europe; occasionally to revise and to rectify reports of the Govern¬ 
ment experts in Europe, and in general to give all required informa¬ 
tion on imported silks as an expert practical manufacturer. What 
has been going on in the appraiser’s department previously to the day 
of my appointment is perfectly unknown to me, so that I am unable to 
give a positive answer from my personal knowledge to the questions 
in 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, and 24, which refer, all of them, 
to such previous occurrences. Neither could I tell more o‘f what has 
been going on round me since the four months I am at work in my 
present position. My work is a very difficult and complicated one, 
requiring the closest attention, and keeping nie confined to my desk 
with my glasses, scales, and measures every minute of my time. I 
•could* not attend properly to my duties if I would allow my attention 
to be distracted by observing what others are doing. 

Having nothing to do with the invoices, which I rarely see, I really 
do not know how they pass from one hand to another; how much is 
added to them, what the values are at which they are passed, and 
what finally becomes of them; even if I were duly authorized and had 
a mind to make inquiries about that part of the service, I could not 



790 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


attend to it without prejudice to my regular duties. Such is the reason 
why I am equally incompetent to give a reply from personal knowledge 
to questions in 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 21, and also to 12, which lately my 
attention has been specially called to. In this way I find myself re¬ 
stricted to the few paragraphs which follow, and on which I am enabled 
to express an opinion based on personal knowledge. 

16. Change from ad valorem to specific duties. 

Since some time I have been hard at work making out for your De¬ 
partment statistical tables of a great variety of silk fabrics, showing 
the exact relations of value and weight of many hundred samples, with 
all details; such tables to serve as material to base thereon the above 
change. Whilst going through my calculations and comparing figures 
I could not help coming to the conclusion already that such change 
will appear impracticable without seriously curtailing the revenue or 
the import trade, besides laying the heavier burden of taxation on the 
consumers of low-priced goods, the great mass of the people, while the 
consumers of costly and lighter goods will be unduly favored. The 
reason is plainly that few or the minority of so-called silk goods are 
made wholly of pure silk, the value of which depend upon its weight; 
the materials used in the immense majority of silk frabrics are either 
silk weighted in dyeing, sometimes up to 300 per cent., or other yarns, 
mostly cotton, then wool, flax, mohair, ramie, &c. In such yarns, as 
well as in weighted silk, the values do not progress with the weights, 
but stand just in inverse proportion to them ; the coarser they are or 
the more their bulk and weight increases the more their value depre¬ 
ciates. For instance: one kilo of No. 200-2 cotton yarn costs 15 francs, 
and one kilo No. 20-2, ten times coarser, costs only 3 francs, a texture 
made of five kilos No. 20-2 cotton weighs five times as much as a texture 
of one kilo No. 200-2, and yet has the same value. The weights, there¬ 
fore, of tissues, in which weighted silk or cotton, wool, &c., enter as a 
component material, cannot be made a criterion of value. 

The popular clamor for specific duties proceeds from an imperfect 
knowledge of the way such weighted or mixed silk goods are manufact¬ 
ured. It may be said that, in order to be just to all parties concerned, 
and to distribute the burden of taxation equitably, a reasonable distinc¬ 
tion should be made between common or coarse goods and finer grades, 
or that such goods ought to be classified instead of being all of them 
subject to the same rate of duty per pound. A just classification, how¬ 
ever, is not imaginable unless it is based again on the intrinsic values, 
like a classification of alloys of pure gold and baser metals. If these 
specific duties are to be levied according to classification, a search of 
value would still be indispensable, in order to find the correct classifi¬ 
cation ; thus a classified specific tariff would, in fact, be a circuitous or 
indirect way only, and an imperfect way, too, of levying duty on the 
value. It is true that it would not help any more defrauders to under¬ 
value their invoices, but it is my honest belief that such people will find 
means to defraud quite as well by wrong classification as they try to do 
now by undervaluation, and that there will be trouble and quarrels 
quite as well as now, so that in the end not much good will be gained 
by the change. 

Pure silk goods—that is to say, goods made wholly of silk—may be 
brought under a pretty fair system of classification, but for mixed goods 
I see no hope. It would be premature on my part to enter into details 
before sending on my statistics, (which I expect to forward within a 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 791 

week or so,) and before the question is decided, whether it would be at 
all desirable to try the experiment with two tariffs. If it should appear, 
from a study of my statistics, that further suggestions or explanations 
would be desirable, I am in your service and await orders. 

18. 1 certainly consider it desirable in American consular districts to 
appoint consular agents, or rather expert analyzers, to verify the cor¬ 
rectness of invoiced values, provided that competent and independent 
persons can be found with the necessary help, proof against conniving 
with manufacturers and against wily approaches. Such experts would 
be useful in Crefeld and in Elberfeld, where most German silks are im¬ 
ported. Of course they would have to avoid delays, because otherwise 
complaints may arise from the German Government. 

19. Is rather an administrative question. As far as I am able to 
judge, knowing the complaints about reappraisements only from the 
public papers, it is my opinion that it would not be desirable to grant 
to the judiciary greater powers to interfere with the decisions of a re¬ 
appraisement, thinking that the courts are not the proper forum for 
settling mere questions of value. If in some cases a higher appeal 
should be desirable, I should say that it ought to go to the executive, 
and that in extreme cases, involving considerable value, a last recourse 
to the executive may be opened, as it is the practice in European coun¬ 
tries. 

22. My view is that it is not owing merely to the high rate of duty 
that smugglers and dishonest shippers try to evade the customs laws, but 
that defrauders will continue their nefarious practices and tricks, even if 
the rate were lowered, since we cannot afford to lower the rate so far that 
it would not pay or be worth while to evade it and to run the risk of 
being caught. 

This is all I am able to reply to the circular from personal knowledge. 

I remain, yours, most respectfullv, 

H. HOLTHAUSEN. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 199 . 

GEORGE W. JEWETT—Appointed Opener and Packer September 5, 1867 ; Sampler 
December 6, 1867 ; Examiner October 7, 1870. 

New York, October 1 , 1885. 

Sir : In answer to the questions contained in your confidential cir¬ 
cular relating to collection of duties, I have the honor to make the 
following replies. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. W. JEWETT, 

Examiner , Seventh Division , Appraiser" 1 s Department. 
Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

1 to 5. Have no knowledge. 

6. Can see no reason for amendment of law. Have no knowledge of 
collector’s suits; think the present tribunals are sufficient. 

7 to 9. Have no knowledge. 

10. There have been differences of opinion as to the elem ents of dutiable 
value on imported merchandise, those differences relating to addition 



792 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


for value of inner coverings. Think the present law fully covers all the 
elements of dutiable value. 

11. No knowledge of percentage of undervaluation. 

12. The examiners and assistant appraisers are chiefly responsible for 
values of imported merchandise returned to the collector. My salary 
is $2,500. The appraiser cannot be responsible for certification of values 
except in special cases reported to him by examiners and assistant ap¬ 
praisers. 

13 to 15. Have no knowledge. 

16. Think specific rates would facilitate the collection of duties. No 
knowledge of textile fabrics. 

17. Have no knowledge. 

18. It would not be practicable for consuls to personally examine 
articles shipped to American ports, or to verity correctness of invoice 
values. It is likely that foreign governments would complain of vexa¬ 
tious delays of consuls. No knowledge of fees. 

19. Think existing laws sufficient. 

20 to 24. Have no knowledge. 


No. 200. 


WM. J. THOMSON—Appointed Examiner August 1, 1885. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street, New York , October 1, 1885. 

Sir : Please find herewith the answers to your questions as required 
by you, and which are given to the best of my knowledge. 

No. 1.—I have not been informed of any such evidence. 

No. 2.—There is no such evidence that I know of. 

No. 3.—Tests are made by weights, measurements, and counting 
threads. 

No. 4.—I know of none. 

No. 5.—I have heard of no such evidence. 

No. 6.—My experience being so limited, I cannot decide. 

No. 7.—I cannot enumerate any articles that have not paid the full 
rate of duty. 

No. 8.—I know of no conspiracy as suggested. 

No. 9.—I cannot say whether there is such evidence. 

No. 10.—I have not heard of any confusion in the appraiser’s depart¬ 
ment. 

No. 11.—I am of the opinion that such an average can be made at 
any time. 

No. 12.—The examiner’s salary, I understand, is from $1,400 to 
$2,500. 

No. 13.—I have not been informed of such evidence. 

No. 14.—I cannot offer an opinion on that subject. 

No. 15.—I have not heard of such bribery. 

No. 16.—I think that specific rate would be an advantage in cases 
where it is practicable. 

No. 17.—I think not. 

No. 18.—I do not think so. Consuls fee at London, $2.50. 

No. 19.—I think it would be safe and useful. 

No. 20.—I have had no experience in wool. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 793 


No. 21.—I have no knowledge of such practices. 

No. 22.—I have received no notice of such evidence. 

No. 23.—I cannot tell any in regard to matter. 

-ZVo. 24.—It such false returns have been made, I do not understand 
why the persons have not been prosecuted. 

I have answered your questions as well as possible, for, as you know, 
I am one of the recent appointments, (as examiner of furs.) Had you 
asked me anything about furs and skins, I could give you all the in¬ 
formation that might be required. 

Very truly, yours, 

W. J. THOMSON, 

Examiner , Sixth Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. 


No. 201. 

JESSE P. BATTERSHALL—Appointed Examiner August 19, 1879. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

TJ. S. Laboratory , 402 Washington Street, October 2, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a printed cir¬ 
cular, dated September 30, 1885, which informs me that on August 27 
a circular, marked “strictly confidential,” and containing twenty-four 
questions relative to the administration of customs laws, had bpen sent' 
to my address. At this time I was away on a leave of absence, during 
which period the circular of August 27 was doubtless inadvertently 
mislaid, as I found none at hand upon my return to this city. I have 
to-day been put in possession of a copy of the circular referred to. 

While ranking as an examiner, my actual position is that of a chemist, 
being in charge of the division of the United States laboratory which 
is devoted to general chemical work— i. e., all chemical investigations 
not included in the examination of sugar, dyes, and fabrics. The work 
performed under my direction embraces the analysis of imported chem¬ 
icals, ores, metals, alloys, drugs, and tea, and exported metals and 
alcoholic preparations. 

I have carefully considered the questions embodied in the circular 
letter of August 27, and I regret to have to state that, owing to the 
special character of my duties, very little opportunity for the formation 
of an opinion of any value has been presented. I beg, however, to refer 
to a few points which may have a bearing upon some of the questions 
submitted. 

Question 1.—I am of the opinion that the water imported under the 
name of “ Apollinaris water ” should be subjected to the duty levied 
upon an artificially prepared mineral water. I have devoted consider¬ 
able time to the general examination and chemical analysis of this article, 
and the grounds upon which my opinion is based were duly reported 
to the appraiser in 1881. The dutiable status of certain iron pigments 
(colcothar) and of bone-black has been the subject of extensive scientific 
investigation during the past five years, and numerous suits at law are 
now pending in which this question is involved. Both parties have in 
each instance gained a single victory, and the proper classification of 



794 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

these articles under the tariff laws antedating the act of July, 1883, is 
still undecided. It may be proper to add, in this connection, that in¬ 
stances frequently occur in which chemical compounds are either invoiced 
under a misleading name, or are designated with so much ambiguity 
that the appraising officer is left in doubt as to their actual character 
without resource to a chemical analysis. In many cases it may be 
fairly questioned whether the importer himself was aware of the identity 
of his importation. 

Question 10.—A few instances have come under my observation in 
which the wording of a Departmental decision would perhaps place a 
chemist in doubt as to the true intention of the same; among them are 
the following: 

(a) Manganese ore, to be considered as such, must contain 50 per 
cent, of “ manganese.” Does the word ‘‘manganese 77 refer to me¬ 
tallic manganese or to the black oxide of manganese, often commercially 
termed ‘‘manganese? 77 

(b) The dutiable nature of various importations containing salts of 
potassa (‘ ‘ manure salts, 7 7 &c.) is supposed to be influenced by the amount 
of ‘ ‘ free potash 7 7 present. Does this term mean caustic potassa or car¬ 
bonate of potassa? The majority of salts affected never contain either 
forms of potassa. 

(c) Importers invariably claim that copper ores should be tested by 
the “dry 77 or “fire assay 77 as correctly giving the commercial value of 
the same. It has been the custom of this laboratory to determine the 
copper present in an ore by the method of electrolysis, which af¬ 
fords the amount of metal actually contained, the duty being assessed 
on the “fine copper 77 present. The importer argues that a deduction 
of 1.3 per cent, should be made from the result so obtained, in order 
to reduce it to the commercial value of the ore. The tariff law fails 
to specify any particular method for testing copper ores, but as a mat¬ 
ter of fact chemists of repute do not make a “fire assay 77 of these 
ores, the results being quite unreliable. 

My attention has recently been directed to the apparent contradiction 
of section 2499, Revised Statutes, as amended by act of March, 1881, 
and paragraph 92 of the same act. So far as non-enumerated chemical 
preparations are involved, it would appear to me that the former sec¬ 
tion, the so-called similitude clause, is inactive, since paragraph 92 
seemingly provides for all such importations. 

Much embarrassment has been experienced in fixing a standard of 
purity for imported teas. I have formulated chemical standards for 
my personal guidance, but these naturally possess no legal authority. 
In Great Britain certain legal requirements are specified, to which all 
teas must conform; for instance, the “total ash 77 of a tea must not be 
over 8 per cent., nor the “extract 77 under 30 per cent. The United 
States tea adulteration act leaves all to the judgment of the tea exam¬ 
iner, aided by what information he may derive from the chemical 
analysis. Within the past few days an invoice of tea-dust was rejected 
at this port, which contained 19 per cent, of total ash, or at least 9 per 
cent, in excess of the quantity normal to tea-dust. Yet, when the case 
came before the board of arbitration, the action of the examiner was 
reversed, on the ground that it had not been shown that the foreign 
mineral matter present was really deleterious to health. The adultera¬ 
tions to which tea is subjected are seldom actually poisonous, but they 
do usually constitute a fraud upon the consumer, and, in my opinion, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 795 


the law should specify to what extent such sophistications may be per¬ 
mitted. 


In an act dated June 26, 1848, certain drugs are enumerated and their 
standards of purity established. It is there provided that these shall 
be tested by the examiner, and in case of an appeal being made the col¬ 
lector is authorized to employ the services of an analytical chemist, 
whose report shall be final. The only instances in which the non-repeal 
of this clause has proved an obstacle to our official work have been 
with opium, and in every instance where the non-official examination 
has differed from the Government chemist’s test there has been no op¬ 
portunity for an appeal. The existence of this act is apparently un¬ 
known to most importers of chemicals; otherwise I think it might 
prove a very serious obstacle to much of our chemical work. Doubt¬ 
less at the date of its enactment official analytical chemists were not 
employed by the Government. Although the law has practically been 
almost a dead letter, I would respectfully urge repeal. 

Question 12.—In my opinion, the examiner is primarily and chiefly 
responsible for a false return of. value to the collector, except in those 
instances where his report may be overruled by the appraiser. The 
legal salary of an examiner ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum. 
I do not think that the appraiser is, or can well be, much else ordinarily 
than one who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed and 
reported to him by the examiner or assistant appraiser. 

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
JESSE P. BATTEBSHALL, Ph. D., 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 202. 

J. C. WISWALLr—Appointed Examner January 7, 1880. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 2, 1885. 

Sir : In response to your circular letter covering a series of questions 
relating to the collection of customs duties at this port and elsewhere, 
I have prepared my replies, and send them herewith; but the ordinary 
work, which at present is very considerable, has prevented my giving 
it the care and thought it needs, but as you urge an early reply I have 
done what I could hastily. 

Very respectfully, 

J. 0. WISWALL. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 

1. I do not know of any. 

2. It is my opinion that where the rates are specific they have, as a 
rule, been collected according to law. 

3. By actual measurement, count, and weight, 

4. Since the arrest and conviction of a deputy collector, some years 
ago, I have seen nothing to lead me to suppose the law was being vio¬ 
lated in that way. 



79G REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

5. I know of none. 

6. It is claimed by many that legislation is necessary to secure a more 
prompt and satisfactory decision of questions of classification and valu¬ 
ation ; that there are inconveniences and delays, for which there should 
be a remedy; the details of what that remedy should be and how it is 
to be secured, I do not feel competent- to offer. I do not know how 
many suits are pending in New York or at the other ports. 

7. I am unable to specify any. 

8. Failures, if any, are from inability to get facts and errors of judg¬ 
ment, in my opinion. 

9. I am unable to furnish any information on these points. 

10. The statutes and regulations, together with the facts, are, in my 
opinion, a sufficient and safe guide in ordinary cases. Cases have and 
no doubt will arise over which there will be more or less doubt and 
discussion. It would be difficult to provide against the latter contin¬ 
gency. 

11. Approximate estimates might be made by those in a position to 
know the facts. 

12. The responsibility lies mainly with the examiner, but the assist¬ 
ant appraiser should be a decided check upon the examiner, and in that 
view must share the responsibility. Salary of examiners, $1,800 to 
$2,500; assistant appraisers, $3,000. In my opinion, the appraiser, in 
most cases, only officially certifies to the reports of his subordinates, on 
whom, owing to his duties, he is compelled largely to rely. 

13. The consular reports are often in conflict witli the judgme nt of 
the examiner. I have no evidence that this is due to dishonesty. 

14. So far as I know, the tariff law, as a rule, has been fairly exe¬ 
cuted. There are exceptional cases of course. I have no evidence of the 
violation of the law or dishonesty other than that publicly reported. 

15. Same as above. 

16. Specific rates, where they can be applied, would simplify the col¬ 
lection of duty and lessen the temptations to violate the law. While I 
think it would be very difficult to frame a law making a specific rate 
upon all textile fabrics which would not work unequally, I would sug¬ 
gest that it might be applied in some instances, and the article of velvet 
as one that might be brought under that rule. 

17. I did not enter the service until after the repeal of that law, and 
therefore cannot make the comparisons called for. 

18. I think it impracticable, and that it would result in delays and 
annoyances, which would be followed by complaints and irritation on 
the part of those interested, on which complaints foreign governments 
might take action in the manner indicated by your inquiry. 

The fee for legalizing an invoice in London is $2.50. I "do not know 
that any other is exacted. 

19. As indicated in my answer to Inquiry No. 6, I think there should 
be some legislation on this subject, injustice to all concerned. 

20. I assume that this must be answered by officials who are hand¬ 
ling the wools. 

21. I can suggest nothing better than care in selecting the officers, a 
vigilant supervision of the work, and a rigid enforcement of the law. 

22. On a few articles a lower rate of duty would, in all probability, 
lessen the temptation to smuggle. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 797 


23. It is my observation that the values placed upon imported goods 
in the appraiser’s office in New York are fully up, and in many instances, 
far above the values placed upon similar goods imported at other At' 
lantic and Pacific ports. 

24. I do not know. 


No. 203. 


"W. D. DAYIS—Appointed Sampler January 12, 1878; Examiner December 30, 1879.. 


Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 2, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to Department circular lately received, I have the 
honor to report that my duties in the appraiser’s department are prin¬ 
cipally confined to the docks and warehouses of this port. Conse¬ 
quently, I shall not be able to so fully answer all the questions as I 
otherwise would. 

In reply to Question No. 12, I would say that the examiner “is pri¬ 
marily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of business, for a 
false return of value to the collector. ’ ’ 

The salaries of the examiners are, respectively, $1,800, $2,000, $2,200, 
and $2,500 per annum. 

The appraiser, individually, cannot have expert knowledge on all 
dutiable goods or articles; consequently he 1L officially certifies to the 
collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiner” as the 
ones on which the duty is to be estimated and collected. 

Question 15.—I do not think that there is now, nor will there be in the 
future, so much danger from bribery as in the past, as political influence 
will not avail offenders. The civil-service law has been beneficial in 
the past, and with its continuance will come a better class of officers, 
who will feel that, so long as they are faithful, they will be retained, 
and there will be no inducement to defraud the Government. 

Question 16.—Yes, when it is possible. A change from ad valorem 
to specific rates would tend to “benefit the revenue, and help to 
diminish a tendency to bribery.” 

Question 21.—To prevent bribery as is related by Henry George in 
the newspaper slip enclosed, I would suggest that when the declaration 
to the inspector is made by the passenger on board the steamer, that the 
keys to the baggage be given to the inspector, and that the baggage be 
examined in the absence of the passenger. There is no reason why 
baggage should not be examined as goods are at the appraiser’s depart¬ 
ment— i. e. , not in the presence of the owner. 

Question 24.—Because proof was not sufficient to convict. 

Very respectfully, 

W. D. DAVIS, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


(Copy of newspaper slip above referred to.) 

A few months ago I found myself one night, with four other passengers, in the smoking- 
car of a Pennsylvania limited express train travelling west. The conversation, beginning 
with fast trains, turned to fast steamers, and then to custom-house experiences. One 
told how, coming from Europe with a trunk filled with presents for his wife, he had 



798 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


significantly said to the custom-house inspector detailed to examine his trunks that he 
was in a hurry. “How much of a hurry?” said the officer, “Ten dollars’ worth of a 
hurry,” was the reply. The officer took a quick look through the trunk and remarked, 
“That’s not much of a hurry for all this.” “I went him ten more,” said the story¬ 
teller, “and he chalked the trunk.” 

Then another told how under similar circumstances he had placed a magnificent 
meerschaum pipe so that it would be the first thing seen on lifting the trunk-lid, and, 
when the officer admired it, had told him it was for him. The third said he simply 
put a greenback conspicuously in the first article of luggage ; and the fourth told how 
his plan was to crumple up a note, and put it with his keys in the officer’s hands. 

Here were four reputable business-men, as I afterward found them to be—one an iron 
worker, one a coal producer, and the other two manufacturers—men of at least average 
morality and patriotism, who not only thought it no harm to evade the tariff, but who 
made no scruple of the false oath necessary, and regarded the bribery of customs officers 
as a good joke. I had the curiosity to edge the conversation from this to the subject of 
free trade, when I found that all four were staunch protectionists, and by edging it a 
little further I found that all four were thorough believers in the right of an employer 
to discharge any workman who voted for a free-trade candidate, holding, as they put 
it, that no one ought to eat the bread of an employer whose interests he opposed. 


No. 204. 

i 

CHARLES H. TOWNSEND—Appointed Clerk, Savannah, August 2, 1871 ; Deputy 

Collector, Key West, August 14, 1872; Inspector, Brunswick, July 15, 1873; Deputy 

Collector, Key West, November 1, 1873; Deputy Collector and Inspector, Brunswick, 

September 30, 1874, and May 10, 1877 ; Clerk and Weigher, New York, May 12, 1880 ; 

Examiner May 5, 1884. 

Port of New York, Appraiser’s Office, 

402 Washington Street , October 2, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to Department circular requesting replies to tlie 
several questions mentioned therein, I beg to say, in regard to No. 1, 
that I have no positive information on the subject. 

2. Not that I am aware of. 

3. No practical information. 

4. Do not know of any. 

5. Same as No. 4. 

6. Can only give my views on last clause. 

I am of opinion that this class of business would be greatly expediated 
it a revenue or customs court was created to decide all cases arising on 
appeal from decisions of collectors of customs. Indeed, this class of 
business has increased to such magnitude that it would appear to be 
almost a “necessity.” 

7. Have not sufficient information on the subject to reply intelligently. 

8 and 9. Same as N o. 7. 

10. There has been, I think, owing to the opinion of the late Attorney- 
General, dated January 11, 1884. As to last paragraph, yes. 

11. I know of no reason to the contrary. 

12. In my opinion, the examiner is chiefly responsible. The character 
and quality .of merchandise largely determine its value, and it would be 
an injustice to hold an officer responsible for what it would be impracti¬ 
cable, if not impossible, for him to know. For instance, kid gloves or 
any other articles might be classified for value strictly in accordance 
with the designation of quality on the invoice, and yet they might, in 
fact, be ol a much superior quality. Ol this the appraiser could not. in 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 799 


the usual course of business, have knowledge, as it would be impracti¬ 
cable for him to be present at the multitude of examinations made. 
The same might be said of improper classifications for duty. An article 
might be invoiced as silk and cotton and yet be all silk; of this only the 
examiner would know. Again, an article might be invoiced in such a 
manner as to give the appearance that its proper classification would be 
a “medicinal preparation,” when in fact it was a “proprietary medi¬ 
cine.” The same might be said of many articles. 

13. Have no means of knowing. 

14. If ‘ ‘ false values have been habitually and systematically reported, 7 7 
I should want the most convincing proof to satisfy me that such action 
did not come of dishonesty. 

15. Eestricting my views to this department, I am of opinion that the 
opportunities for the repetition of such false valuations, from whatever 
cause they may have come in the past, is greatly lessened, and their 
success largely restricted, under the administration of the present faithful 
and efficient appraiser. 

16. Unquestionably. As to textile fabrics, I cannot say. 

17. I cannot believe they have. The provisions of the moiety act 
had, in my opinion, a tendency to inspire customs officers with inordinate 
zeal, and to encourage unscrupulousness in others having a desire for 
prospective interest in any seizure. 

19. In my opinion, the judiciary should be vested with power to con¬ 
firm or set aside the action of the appraising department. This would 
not only afford justice to importers who feel aggrieved, but would also 
protect the interests of the Government from any imposition that might 
be possible in the present final appraisement. 

20. Same as Ho. 7. 

21. The method recently adopted by the Department will greatly 
restrict the disgraceful practice. It might be further reduced by giving 
greater publicity to the law that makes such practice a penal offence. 
It might with advantage be added to the “baggage declaration 77 now 
circulated among arriving passengers. 

22. 23, and 24. Same as Ho. 7. 

Very respectfully, 

CHAS. H. TOWHSEHD, 

Examiner , First Division. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. 


800 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


PORT OF PHILADELPHIA. 


No. 205. 

CHARLES H. JONES—Appointed Special Deputy Collector August 18, 1885. 

Custom-House, Philadelphia, Pa., 

Collector’s Office , October 30, 1885. 

Sir: Referring to circular letter of 9th September last, marked 
u strictly confidential,’ 7 in which a series of questions bearing on the 
administration of the customs service are presented, I have the honor 
to submit the following replies, which, by reason of my recent connec¬ 
tion with the service, are for the most part necessarily brief, viz: 

1. There is no evidence at this port. 

2. No satisfactory evidence. 

3. Relates to appraiser. 

4. No evidence so far as I can ascertain. 

5. I do not know of any. 

6. It seems to be within the province of the Solicitor of the Treasury 
to devise means by which collectors’ suits can be promptly disposed of. 
No amendment appears to be necessary to the law relating to payment 
of interest on such suits. 

7. Pertains to New York custom-house. 

8. Pertains to New York custom-house. 

9. I do not know of any. 

10. As far as can be ascertained, there has been none except, perhaps, 
on the question of dutiable charges. Since the present tariff act went 
into effect, different decisions and rulings in the matter of “charges’ 7 
have led to more or less confusion and doubt as to the intent of the law 
on this point. How far these charges enter into the dutiable value of 
merchandise appears to be now well defined, and where they have been 
erroneously added or deducted the errors have been rectified by reliq¬ 
uidation of entries. The mode of fixing dutiable value seems to be well 
understood—the statutes and decisions based thereon covering the en¬ 
tire ground. 

11. I do not think that undervaluation of merchandise imported at 
this port exists to any appreciable extent. There is one class of entries, 
those of Meyer & Dickinson, consisting of silks, cottons, velvets, and 
hat-trimmings, that show a regular advance by the appraiser over the 
invoice prices. Undervaluations, when they do occur, are uniformly 
detected by the appraiser, and the remedy provided by section 2900, 
Revised Statutes, applied. 

12. Have no knowledge of, nor do the records show, any false return of 
values to the collector. To the last interrogatory, I answer in the negative. 

13. No evidence. 

14. I have no information on this point. 

15. And am, therefore, unable to answer this question. 

16. Would be a benefit if it could be successfully applied, and with¬ 
out discrimination, and it would insure the absolutely correct return 
of duties. Change from ad valorem to specific duties would remove 
the incentive to bribery. I am not prepared to say if specific rates could 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 801 


be applied advantageously to all textile fabrics, but I think that if the 
existing quantity of duty, or what ought to be the correct amount of duty, 
on cotton embroideries and Hamburg edgings could be collected upon 
a specific basis, much of the undervaluation and uncertainty as to what 
factors enter into the foreign market value of this class of merchandise 
might be avoided. No evidence of bribery at this port. 

17. No ; not at this port. 

18. It would not, in my opinion, be practicable for consular officers 
of the United States to personally examine goods to be shipped from 
the districts named for the purpose of verifying the correctness of in¬ 
voiced values. Under article 619 of the Consular Regulations, consuls 
now require samples to be deposited with them in all proper cases, and 
particularly as to textile fabrics. By this means they can compare 
quality, price, &c., with similar goods manufactured in the same dis¬ 
trict. If they .find undervaluation to exist, they can make note thereof 
on the triplicate invoice, or otherwise notify the collector at the port of 
entry in the United States. The goods belong to the shipper until the 
bill of lading is signed and dispatched, and a United States consul can 
exercise no control over them without complications arising, nor can he 
withhold his certificate to the shipper’s declaration, notwithstanding 
the fact that he may be satisfied in his own mind of the falsity of such 
declaration. I know of no consular district in which a consul cannot 
safely and surely ascertain and report the true value of every shipment, 
except in places where the consulate may be at some point remote from 
place of manufacture of the goods, or in cases where the goods may be 
special or proprietary in character. The consular fee at all consulates in 
Great Britain for certification of invoices, no matter what the value of 
the goods may be, is $2.50. 

19. I think not. 

20. There are no officers now in the appraiser’s department at this 
port who have been in service sufficiently long enough to acquire a 
knowledge on this subject. My own experience as to the workings of 
the complicated rates on wool is limited, and, so far as I can learn, there 
are no records available from which an analysis could be prepared 
within any reasonable time. An examination of all wool entries since 
1860 would probably be necessary to effect the object this request has 
in view, but this would involve so much labor and time as to render 
the result of such research of no value for the use contemplated by the 
honorable Secretary. 

21. No evidence at this port. If there had been, necessary steps 
would have been at once taken to prevent it. 

22. I believe not. 

23. Not true as to Philadelphia, for the reason that several importing 
firms have changed their business from this port to New York, where 
they claimed they could obtain better advantages. 

24. No charges of this character have been made at this port, con¬ 
sequently no arrests, indictments, or punishment followed. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, &c., 

CHARLES HENRY JONES, 

Special Deputy Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


51 A 


802 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

No. 206. 

B. HUCKEL—Appointed Deputy Collector March 1, 1873; April 19, 1873, and An 

gust 7, 1885. 

Custom House, Philadelphia, Pa., 

Collector’s Office , October 8, 1885. 

Sir: I liave the honor to reply to your circular letter of the 9th 
ultimo containing certain inquiries relating to custom-house affairs by 
answering in the order they are presented: 

1. I am not in possession of any evidence that the rate of duty as 
prescribed by law has not been collected. 

2. No evidence that the full amount of duty as prescribed by Con¬ 
gress has not been collected. 

3. On French goods, by the metrical system ; on English, by ordinary 
measurement. 

4. Have no evidence of such collusion, but such a thing is possible. 

5. There is no evidence of incompetent or improper weighing or 
measuring on the wharves. 

6. There are suits now pending against the late collector (General 
Hartranft), upon classification. The Solicitor of the Treasury should 
possess the power to cause district attorneys to more promptly dispose 
of such suits ; interest is properly allowable upon money which an im¬ 
porter has to lay out of pending the disposition of his suit. (The latter 
part of this question more properly belongs to the United States attor¬ 
neys. 

7. Have no knowledge of the action of the New York custom-house. 

8. If such failure did exist, or now exists, it must be through dis¬ 
honesty, as the officials in New York cannot be so ignorant of their 
duties. 

9. It would seem to be almost impossible for the appraiser to report 
to the collector false dutiable values for the purpose of defrauding the 
revenue, except through a conspiracy between his department and the 
importer. Such false returns might occur through a lack of judgment. 

10. Have heard of no confusion or conflict of opinion in the appraiser’s 
department. 

11. Not coming in direct contact with the appraiser’s department, 
have no means of knowing. 

12. The appraiser appears to be one who officially certifies to the values 
fixed by the examiners and deputies. It appears to have been the cus¬ 
tom to appoint an appraiser more for his political influence than for his 
knowledge of merchandise, and the same custom may still prevail. 

13. No satisfactory evidence exists to my knowledge of such false 
foreign values. 

14. Have no knowledge of the existence of any such failure to collect 
the full amount of duty. 

15. Not knowing of any such action in the past, cannot propose any¬ 
thing for future guidance. 

16. When possible, specific rates of duty would be more satisfactory 
to the importer and advantageous to the Government. Textile fabrics, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 803 


many of them being; composed of two different materials, and materials 
of different value, can only be assessed under an ad valorem duty, and 
in a large number of cases with specific rates in addition. 

17. Having no knowledge of false reports by the appraisers I am at a 
loss to know how to answer this question. 

18. I am unable to answer this, except that portion relating to con¬ 
sular fees, which appears to be $2.50 on each verification. 

19. The authorities should have entire jurisdiction in the ascertain¬ 
ment of dutiable values upon which to levy ad valorem rates. 

20. There appears to have been a great diversity of opinion upon 
the classification of wools, and it is a matter (in my opinion) that should 
more properly claim the attention of appraisers. 

21. I know of no such practice at this port, and to prevent a practice 
of this character is to punish the offenders when discovered under the 
law. 

22. An increase or high rates of duty has a tendency for dishonest 
persons to evade the full payment of duty by undervaluation, but that 
is no reason why the Government should not endeavor to suppress such 
dishonesty by punishing the offenders and bring smugglers to justice. 

23. Not knowing that a failure to enforce the revenue law in New 
York exists, except upon mere rumor, I am unable to make any state¬ 
ment. 

24. Answer to 23, I think, will apply to this question. 

In conclusion, permit me to say that my recent appointment as deputy 
collector (June, 1885) does not afford me the ready facilities to have 
more fully answered your questions. Your circular being marked con¬ 
fidential prevented me from procuring information, except in a cautious 
manner. 

1 am, with great respect, your obedient servant, 

B. HUCKEL, 

Deputy Collector . 

Hon. Daniel Manning-, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 207. 

JOHN K. VALENTINE—Appointed U. S. .District Attorney November, 1875. 

Office of United States Attorney, 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia , September 23, 1885. 

Sir : Referring to my letter of the 15th instant and to your circular 
received on the 9th instant, I have the honor to state, in answer to the 
sixth inquiry, that there are now pending in this district 123 suits 
against collectors of customs to recover moneys paid as duties. 

I inclose herewith a list of these cases, showing the number of suits 
pending, and classifying them as to the legal questions involved, and 
showing the number of suits in each classification, and how long each 
suit has been at issue. 

There are, you will observe, fourteen different classes. The first class 
of cases includes eighty suits. The question involved in this class is as 
to what charges should be included as part of the dutiable value; and 



804 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

I understand that this question has been passed upon by the circuit 
court for the district of isew York, and is now pending on writ of error 
in the Supreme Court. The first case under this class was placed at issue 
on the lltli of March, 1884. 

The second class includes two cases and involves the question as to 
the rate of duty on bichromate of soda. The first of these cases was 
placed at issue on the 27th of February, 1885. 

The third class includes two cases and involves the question as to the 
rate of duty on Hoff’s malt extract. 

The fourth class includes two cases, and involves the question as to 
the amount of duty on sponges. 

The fifth class includes three cases, and involves the question as to 
the rate of duty on certain woolen goods. 

The sixth class includes eight cases, and involves the question as to 
the rate of duty on certain articles claimed to be dutiable, as buttons. 

The seventh class includes nine cases, and involves the question as 
to the duty on certain mineral substances. 

The eighth class includes one case, and involves the question as to 
the rate of duty on manufacture of flax classified as handkerchiefs. 

The ninth class includes one case, and involves the question as to 
the rate of duty on down quilts. 

The tenth class includes one case, and involves the question as to 
whether certain articles should be subject to duty as toys or as china 
or earthenware. The question involved in this case has been passed 
upon by the circuit court for this district, and is now pending on writ of 
error in the Supreme Court. 

The eleventh class includes one case, and involves the question of 
duty on steel blooms. 

The twelfth class includes one case, and involves the question of duty 
on certain machinery. 

The thirteenth class includes nine cases, and involves the question as 
to the rate of duty on certain articles known as hat trimmings. 

The fourteenth class includes one case, and involves the question as 
to the rate of duty on marble. 

There are two remaining cases, one of which has been virtually set¬ 
tled and the duties refunded-, and in the other no narr has been filed 
or bill of particulars furnished. I may remark that in the cases where 
a blank is left under the date of when at issue, no narr has been filed 
by the plaintiff and that these cases are not at issue. 

The question implies that there are suits pending which cannot be 
promptly disposed of in this district. This is not the fact. Any case 
can be promptly tried where this is desired by either party. As an 
illustration of this fact I would state that there are only four cases or¬ 
dered on the list for the next session of the circuit court; that one of 
these cases was only placed at issue on the 27th of February last, and 
that they will undoubtedly be tried if the counsel for both parties so 
desire. 

Cases of this kind are placed, under the rules of the court, at the 
head of the list, and are always reached for trial. I would state, there¬ 
fore, from my experience in this district, that the existing law needs 
no amendment, for the present condition of this class of cases is not 
exceptional. There has been no period within my knowledge in which 
these cases have not been promptly disposed of by the court. So far as 
this district is concerned, I believe that the present judicial system 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 805 


works efficiently and promptly and to the entire satisfaction of the mer¬ 
cantile community who are parties litigant in court. 

The payment of interest upon moneys which it is decided should be 
refunded would seem to be just. The importer who pays the money is 
deprived of its use, is subjected to the expense of litigation, and it is 
therefore not unreasonable, in my opinion, that interest should be al¬ 
lowed in such cases. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN K. VALENTINE, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

1. Under section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, as to what charges 
should be included as a part of the dutiable value: 

Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

4. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

5. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

6. October session, 1883. 

12. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

13. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

14. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

15. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

16. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

17. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

32. October session, 18rt3.March 11, 1884. 

64. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

74. October session, 1883. 

75. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

76. October session, 1883.March 11, 1883. 

78. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

90. October session, 1883.March 15, 1884. 

91. October session, 1883 ......March 11, 1884. 

92. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

93. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

37. April session, 1884.June 10, i884. 

38. April session, 1884.June 10, 1884. 

39. April session, 1884..June 10, 1884. 

40. April session, 1884.June 10, 1884. 

41. April session, 1884 .June 10, 1884. 

42. April session,. 1884 .June 10, 1884. 

43. April session, 1884 .June 10, 1884. 

46. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

57. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

58. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

60. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

61. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

62. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

63. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

66. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

67. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

68. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

69. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

70. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

71. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

72. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

73. April session, 1884 . ..September 3, 1884. 

74. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

75. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

76. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

77. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

78. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

79. April session, 1884 .September 3, 1884. 

SO. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 


















































806 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


Number and term. Date when case was at issue. 

83. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

84. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

85. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

86. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

87. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

88. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

89. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

90. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

91. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

92. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

93. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

94. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

95. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

96. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

103. Ax>ril session, 1884. 

104. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

Il5. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884. 

118. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884. 

119. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884. 

120. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884.. 

121. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884. 

122. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884. 

123. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884. 

125. April session, 1884 .October 4, 1884. 

126. April session, 1884 .December 19, 1884. 

127. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

128. April session, 1884 .September 6, 1884. 

19. October session, 1884. 

61. October session, 1884.February 27, 1885. 

77. October session, 1884.February 27, 1885. 

20. April session, 1885. 

27. April session, 1885 .September 23, 1885. 

2. Whether bichromate of soda should be classified under the similiter 
clause of Sec. 2491) It. S. as subject to duty at 3 cents per pound, or as 
an article not specially enumerated, subject to duty of 25 per centum ad 
valorem. 

66. October session, 1884.February 27, 1885. 

28. April session, 1885.September 7, 1885. 

3. Whether Hoffs Malt Extract is subject to duty as a proprietary 
preparation of 50 per centum ad valorem or should be classified as beer, 
subject to duty of 35 cents per gallon. 

46. April session, 1883.March 11, 1884. 

31. October session, 1883.March 11, 1884. ' 

4. As to the value of sponges. 

38. October session, 1881.May 2. 1S82. 

39. October session, 1881.May 2, 1882. 

5. Whether certain articles are a manufacture of wool and subject to 
duty of 50 cents per pound and an additional duty of 35 per centum ad 
valorem, under Schedule L, class 3, or to a duty of 35 per centum, 
under Schedule M. 

26. April session, 1877.. September 3, 1877. 

87. April session, 1883.March 15, 1884. 

88. April session, 1883..March 15, 1884. 

6. Whether certain articles should be classified under Schedule 0, act 
March 3, 1883, as not specially enumerated and subject to duty of 45 







































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


807 


per centum, or as buttons, subject to duty of 25 per ceutum. Also, 
question of charges. 


56. April 
58. April 
67. April 
4. April 
129. April 

51. October 

52. October 
6. April 


session, 1883. 
session, 1883. 
session, 1883. 
session, 1884. 
session, 1884. 
session, 1884. 
session, 1884. 
session, 1885. 


March 11, 1884. 
March 11, 1884. 
March 11, 1884. 
April 5, 1884. 
December 19, 1884. 
February 27, 1885. 
February 27, 1885. 
September 7, 1885. 


7. Whether certain articles were to be classified as subject to duty of 
20 per ceutum as mineral bituminous substances. 


15. October session, 1879.. ..March 6, 1880. 

13. April session, 1881.June 28, 1881. 

45. April session, 1881.September 14, 1881. 

66. April session, 1881. 

57. October session, 1881_August 14, 1885. 

16. April session, 1882 .September 11, 1882. 

10. October session, 1882.... August 14, 1885. 

49. April session, 1883 __August 14, 1885. 

62. October session, 1884.... February 27, 1885. 


8. Whether certain articles should be classified as handkerchiefs or 
other manufacture of flax, subject to duty of 35 per centum ad valorem 
or as a manufacture of linen embroidered, subject to duty of 30 per 
centum ad valorem. 


2. April session, 1885.September 7, 1885. 

9. Whether down-quilts shall be classified as subject of duty of 50 
per centum under Schedule L, act March 3, 1883. 

4. April session, 1885..September 7, 1885. 

10. Whether certain articles should be classified as china or earthen¬ 
ware, subject to duty of 60 per centum ad valorem, or as toys subject 
to duty of 35 per centum ad valorem. 

117. April session, 1884..October 4, 1884. 

11. Of duty on steel blooms. 

33. April session, 1883.March 11,1884. 

12. As to valuation of certain machinery, and protest against mer¬ 
chant appraisement. 

3. April session, 1882.August 30, 1882. 

13. As to the rate of duty on certain articles known commercially as 
hat trimmings or hat and bonnet ribbons, &c.: 


18. 

59. 

33. 

75. 

3. 

28. 

59. 

124. 

12 . 


October 

April 

April 

October 

April 

April 

April 

April 

April 


session, 

session, 

session, 

session, 

session, 

session, 

session, 

session, 

session, 


1875. 

1876. 
1881. 
1881. 
1884. 
1884. 
1884. 

1884. 

1885. 


December 14, 1876. 
December 14, 1876. 
June 28, 1881. 
January 24, 1882. 
April 5, 1884. 

. Juue 10, 1884. 
September 3, 1884. 
October 4, 1884. 


14. As to the rate of duty on marble: 


80. October session, 1883-March 11, 1884. 

q 2 October session, 1877.-This case is virtually ended and duties refunded, 

61 October session, 1880 .No narr tiled or bill of particulars furnished. 





























808 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 208. 


GEORGE F. LELAND—Appointed Surveyor July 28, 1883. 


Custom-House, Philadelphia, Pa., 

Surveyor’s Office , September 23, 1885. 

Sir : In reply to vour circular-letter (strictly confidential) of August 
27,1885,1 have the honor to state that as questions Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 17, 
20, and 22 to 24, inclusive, have no bearing upon the duties of my office 
I can make no intelligent replies to the same. 

In answer to question No. 5 I would state that since assuming the 
duties of surveyor, I have failed to note anything but an honest and 
correct performance of such work. 

In replying to question No. 18 I would say that in my opinion it would 
be impracticable, and would undoubtedly be objectionable to those Gov¬ 
ernments ; and such action on the part of foreign Governments would 
certainly not be tolerated in this country. 

In answer to question No. 19 I would say that such additional legis¬ 
lation would only tend to complicate the business and be detrimental to 
the interests of the Government. 

In reply to question 21 I would most respectfully state that I have 
given that matter strict attention, both in person and by deputy, and 
have failed to discover any evidence whatever of the existence of such 
practices at this port. 

Very respectfully, 


GEO. F. LELAND, 

Surveyor of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 209. 


JAMES B. BAKER—Appointed Appraiser August 6, 1885. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 

Appraiser’s Office , August 31, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular 
letter of 27 th instant, marked “strictly confidential,” and regret to write 
in reply that I fear it will require some length of time to obtain the in¬ 
formation on the several subjects mentioned in the letter, to enable me 
to make a satisfactory report. 

During the short period I have occupied the position of appraiser 
my time has been wholly given to the duties appertaining to the current 
business of the department, leaving no time to acquire the knowl¬ 
edge necessary to report intelligently on the matters connected with 
this department. The slight knowledge I obtained of the civil-service 
rules and regulations was acquired bet ween the time I learned of my 
appointment and the date I assumed the duties of this office, made it 
advisable for me to qualify and take charge of the department without 
suggesting any change of the higher officers. Considering the civil serv¬ 
ice regulations, the only change that could be or can be made at pres- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 809 


ent are the two assistant appraisers and the drug inspector, all of which 
are appointments to be made either by the President or Secretary of the 
Treasury. Whether it would be agreeable to the appointing power for 
the appraiser to nominate or make suggestions as to men for these posi¬ 
tions I do not know. Should it be desired that the appraiser shall 
suggest the names of persons for them, or either of them, the appraiser 
will be prepared to do so at aD early date. 

Until new assistant appraisers are qualified and enter upon their 
duties the appraiser will be without any confidential assistance. 

The fixing of a fair and equitable value on the imports depend mostly, 
if not entirely, upon the honesty, capacity, and expert knowledge of 
the examiner. Undervalued invoices can be passed by him without 
the knowledge of any superior officer, whose notice is called only to in¬ 
voices by the merchant who may complain of the advance in price and 
appeals to the appraiser or to his assistants for redress. 

A level-headed lawyer would, in my opinion, make a desirable and 
useful assistant appraiser. 

Very respectfully, yours, &c., 

J. B. BAKER, Appraiser. 


Ko. 210. 

LEWIS HEYL—Appointed Special Agent, Philadelphia, January 3, 1872; United 
States General Appraiser December 11, 1877. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa.,' 

United States General Appraiser’s Office, October 2, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully referring to my letter of the 4th ultimo, in which 
the receipt of your circular of August 27, 1885, marked u strictly confi¬ 
dential,” is acknowledged, and the reasons for the delay of my reply 
explained, I have now the honor of reporting that I have carefully 
examined and considered the questions embraced in the circular, and 
reply to them in the order in which the paragraphs presenting them 
are respectively numbered, assuming that a direct and definite answer, 
by number, without iu all cases repeating the contents or substance 
of the question, is what the Department desires. 

1. I know of none, excepting only such as may have arisen from an 
honest difference of opinion as to the proper classification for duty of 
some kinds of goods. 

2. I am not aware of any. 

3. Usually by measuring the folds and counting the same, taking due 
account also of the width of the goods. 

4. I know of none. 

5. 1 know of none. 

6. This paragraph embraces six distinct questions which seem to me 
to require separate answers, to wit: (1.) As regards the causes of suits 
resulting from differences of opinion as to the proper classification of 
importations for duty (which seems to me to be the scope of this ques¬ 
tion). I think the existing law does need amendment. What in my 
judgment the nature of the amendment should be, will be set forth in 
my reply to the last question in this paragraph. (2 and 3.) In regard 
to the second and third questions of this paragraph, as to the number 



810 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


and classification of such suits, I have no knowledge whatever, nor 
data upon which to base an intelligent opinion. (4.) To the fourth 
question, whether “ a plan cannot be devised by the Attorney-General, the 
Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorney, and the judges, by which 
these suits can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits, as they 
come up, be speedily put at issue and tried,” I reply, unhesitatingly, 
in the affirmative, but must with all deference add that I think the 
history of legislation does not show that the most learned expounders 
of the law are always the most skillful or successful legislators. The 
skill to analyze and interpret the meaning of an existing statute, with 
respect to its effect upon isolated propositions or questions, although it 
is unquestionably one of the indispensable qualifications for the proper 
consideration and solution of the adaptability of a proposed remedy for 
defective laws, to meet the desired ends, it is far from being the only 
one; and without the addition, in its possessor, of special training and 
experience in the preparation of drafts of laws, as well as familiar 
acquaintance with existing provisions and their judicial construction, 
would not, in my opinion, suffice to insure the most successful accom¬ 
plishment of the object in view. (5.) The question whether “the exist¬ 
ing law in respect to the payment of interest as a part of the damages 
and costs in ‘collectors’ suits’ needs amendment” is one with which 
I am not sufficiently familiar to enable me to answer it intelligently. 
(6.) As to the sixth and last question in this paragraph (No. 6), it seems 
to me that New York is the only port at which “the existing judicial 
system” cannot “be made sufficient to work efficiently”; and, although 
I have long been of the opinion that the services of the Board of Gene¬ 
ral Appraisers, if not each member thereof separately, might be made 
available by adequate changes in the statutes to effect the desired 
reform; yet, unless the changes should be made general, so as to 
embrace all the ports, it would hardly be desirable for New York 
alone. If it should be thought best to continue the existing system, an 
additional circuit and district court for the port of New York, with juris¬ 
diction limited exclusively to such cases, should be provided, and the 
judges of which should be selected with special regard to their famili¬ 
arity with the customs laws. If a plan investing the general apprais¬ 
ers with this jurisdiction should meet your approval, I would suggest 
that their number should be increased to eight —the additional four 
members to be located as follows: two on the Pacific coast, one at Chi¬ 
cago, and one at New Orleans. 

7, 8, and 9. Touching the questions in these paragraphs, I have no 
such information as would be of value to the Department or the service. 
I have, in commou with many of the older officials and employes in the 
Government service, long had suspicions of the unfaithfulness of a very 
limited number of men (not over five or six) formerly, but not now in 
that service, but am in possession of no facts or data which could be 
made available. 

10. I am not aware of any such “confusion, doubt, or conflict of opin¬ 
ion” now existing in the appraisers’ department proper, but have fre¬ 
quently met with it on the part of merchant appraisers, many of whom 
insist that section 7 of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, excludes all cov¬ 
erings of goods as an element of dutiable market value; and some of 
whom claimed to be independent of, and refused to be governed by, the 
decisions of the Department in regard to the law upon this point, 
especially as to cartons, tillots, and the like articles. On the question 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 811 


ot the exemption from duty of all such articles, I have understood the 
late appraiser of the port of New York to concur in the views of these 
merchants from the beginning. (2) To the second question in this 
paragraph, I reply in the affirmative—as well in regard to my own 
opinion as in what I believe to be that of the “ examiners, deputy ap¬ 
praisers, and appraisers.” 

11. To the question in this paragraph, I reply that I do not think so. 

12. At the principal ports, especially at New York, I should think 
the examiner “primarily aud chiefly” the responsible party. The re¬ 
sponsibility would be greater or less, according to the amount and 
variety of importations handled, and the number of examiners em¬ 
ployed at the port, and the consequent inability of the appraiser, or 
even all the assistant appraisers, to give personal attention to the de¬ 
tails of the office. The salaries are different at different ports. To the 
last question in the paragraph, I reply that at the more important ports 
he cannot “ordinarily and in fact” be much else. 

13. I have no information of value on this point. 

14. On the several hypotheses here laid down, I should answer in the 
affirmative the first question ; but as I have no knowledge in regard to 
the matters set forth, it is impossible for me to identify parties who 
might be guilty thereof. In regard to the remaining questions in the 
paragraph, I am also totally ignorant. 

15. To this I reply, none whatever. 

16. I do not think a change from ad valorem to equivalent or justly 
equalized specific rates of duty practicable, qven as to all textile fabrics,, 
much less so as to importations generally; and do not see how such a 
change could “ benefit the revenue or help to dimiuish a tendency to- 
bribery,” even if the existing quantity of duty could be assured. Even 
approximately just specific rates are practicable in regard to only a 
very limited proportion of our importations. 

17. Without any definite knowledge upon the subject of this question, 
it seems to me quite probable that they have been. 

18. Consular agents, if sufficiently “numerous and alert,” could, I 
think, personally make the examinations and verifications here referred 
to. (2.) I am not in possession of the data to enable me to answer 
the second question in this paragraph intelligently. (3.) As to the third 
question, I do not think it at all “likely that foreign governments would 
abstain from the complaints” referred to. (4.) I have no knowledge of 
the fees exacted by our consuls in England. 

19. My answer to the question preferred in this paragraph is decidedly 
in the negative. 

20. I have not the data or statistics at hand (or present access thereto) 
to enable me to prepare the analysis here asked for; but beg leave re¬ 
spectfully to suggest, that if my memory of the work is not greatly at 
fault, the analysis desired will be found in a brief compend of Tariff 
Enactments, published some years ago by Dr. Edward Young, then 
Chief of the Bureau of Statistics in Washington. 

21. I have often, in social circles, heard of the existence of such a 
practice, but have no definite or personal information in regard thereto, 
or of the extent thereof. 

22. No, I think not ; in my opinion the mischievous, not to say iniqui¬ 
tous system, of consignments now prevailing to so great an extent is 
responsible for more of the successful evasions of and frauds upon the 
customs-revenue laws than all other causes combined. It has ruined 


812 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


the importing business of many of the oldest and best importing houses 
in ^ew York and transferred it to the hands of foreign manufacturers 
and their often unscrupulous and irresponsible agents here; and if not 
checked by stringent legislative discriminations or penalties, will soon 
thoroughly demoralize the whole customs service of the country. 

23 and 24. Respectfully referring to my above reply to paragraphs 7, 
8, and 9, I repeat that I have no information in regard to the questions 
embraced in paragraphs 23 and 24 which would be of any real value 
in the investigation thereof. That there may have been and probably 
have been exceptional cases of such official faithlessness can hardly -be 
doubted, but that there has been any such general or extensive cor¬ 
ruptness or delinquency, I do not believe—indeed I feel very confident 
that such is not the fact, and that a thorough investigation would 
justify this confidence. 

With great respect. 

LEWIS HEYL, 

TJ. S. General Appraiser. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 211. 


E. H. NEVIN, Jr.—Appointed Surveyor March 2, 1882; Naval Officer August 2,1883 

and January 7 , 1884. 


Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 
Naval Office , October 6 , 1885. 

Sir: In response to Department circular dated August 27, “strictly 
confidential,” and received in my absence on leave and held until 
ray return, I beg to say that the questions are of such a nature that 
this office is not qualified to give intelligent answers from actual 
knowledge to them, as they relate exclusively to the collector’s, sur¬ 
veyor’s, and appraiser’s departments. To comply as fully as I can, 
however, with the Department’s request, I have the honor to inclose 
marked statement A, formal replies to each of the numbered questions 
in the circular referred to. 

Very respectfully, 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


E. H. NEVIN, Jr., 

Naval Officer. 


Statement A. 

Formal replies to questions asked in Department circular dated August 
27, 1885, and marked “strictly confidential”: 

1. We know of no such evidence. 

2. We know of no such evidence. 

3. Pertains to the appraiser’s department. 

4. No such evidence here. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 813 


5. None. 

6. Collector and district attorney only can answer. 

7. Have no knowledge of the matter here. 

8. Have no knowledge of the matter here. 

9. Have no knowledge of the matter here. 

10. Have no knowledge of the matter here. 

11. Have no knowledge of the matter here. 

12. Hate no knowledge of the matter here. 

13. Not to our knowledge. 

14. Have no knowledge of anything of the kind. 

15. Have no knowledge of anything of the kind. 

16. We think not. 

17. Have no knowledge. 

18. Have no knowledge. 

19. We think it would. 

20. Do not know history of various duties on wool. 

21. Have no knowledge of such practice here. 

22. Have no knowledge. 

23. Have no knowledge. 

24. Have no knowledge of any false returns or reports. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

E. H. NEYIN, Jr., 

Naval Officer. 


No. 212. 


D. C. CLARKE—Appointed Examiner Marcli 7 , 1882. 

Appraiser’s Office, 
Philadelphia , September 19, 1885. 

Dear Sir : I received yours of September 9, with printed questions 
asking replies to same. I have the honor to say, in reply, that many of 
the questions are of a character which never come under my notice, and 
of which I have no personal knowledge whatever, and it would be use¬ 
less for me to discuss matters foreign to the duties in my position, 
many of which I have no means of finding out. I herewith, however, 
append such answers as, in my judgment, may be of some service, and 
therefore comply with your request. 

I am, yours, &c., 

D. C. OLABKE, Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury . 


1. I know of no such evidence. 

2. I know of none. 

3. Invoice measurements are verified from the tickets containing the 
yards or meters, unless the articles require appraisement when they are 
measured. 

4. As I do not come in contact with that department I know of no 
collusion between persons making entry of packages; and the entry 
clerk or deputy collector to send to the appraiser a bogus or false pack¬ 
age for examination—I know of no such an occurrence here. 



814 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


5. I have no knowledge of any. 

6. The law, in my opinion, should be so amended that but one con¬ 
struction could be put upon it, admitting only of a clear, unquestionable 
classification, without any elasticity. 

7. 8, and 9. I ha\e no personal knowledge of the existence of such 
conditions as described in these questions, and cannot therefore give 
any answers of any value. 

10. In my judgment, the standard to be applied is already and suf¬ 
ficiently defined. 

11. From the knowledge the Department has already learned from 
the recent investigations, it is perhaps better able to judge of this 
matter than my opinion would be worth to it. 

12. (1) Ordinarily, I should say, mostprobably the examiner, but either 
or all might be concerned. (2) As a general answer to the second part 
of this question, I say no. The position, however, in my judgment, is 
an important one after all. He should be a good business man, with a 
thorough knowledge of the tariff and his duty under it, ready and 
prompt to decide questions as between the importer and the Government, 
and this he should be able to do in an intelligent and fearless manner, 
without being arbitrary, but just to all concerned. 

13. I have no means of learning that any Government officials have 
presented any false evidence of foreign values. 

14. I know nothing in relation to these questions. 

15. An honest and vigorous administration may do much towards 
preventing such a condition of affairs in the future, if they now exist. 

16. (1) I think it would be a benefit. There would be a small field for 
bribery under specific rates. (2) Largely so, at least. 

17. Cannot give any definite reply of any facts. 

18. There is no doubt in my mind of the practicability of American 
consular agents personally examining articles to be shipped to Ameri¬ 
can ports, and to verify the correctness of invoiced values. They should 
be expert in their various lines and sufficiently paid to keep them honest. 
There ought not to be vexatious delays, or cause for com plaint. The agent 
can readily keep himself posted if he gives his whole attention to his legiti¬ 
mate duties, thereby preventing any likelihood of foreign Governments 
complaining of the consuls—besides 1 do not think that foreign gov¬ 
ernments should have much to do with what our Government may deem 
necessary in preventing their subjects from exporting undervalued goods 
into our ports. Consul’s fees exacted on English invoices are usually 
$2.50. 

19. With the knowledge in possession of the Secretary on this sub¬ 
ject, I am entirely satisfied that he is able to recommend "the necessary 
changes. 

20. This will no doubt be done by the wool examiner. 

21. I know nothing whatever in relation to this matter. 

23. Do not think so. 

24. I cannot say why—if such be true. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 815 


No. 213. 

WILLIAM M. LAMB—Appointed Examiner July 15, 1872. ' 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 18, 1885. 

Sir : In answer to your circular dated September 9, 1885, I respect¬ 
fully submit the following answers, viz : 

1. I believe the rates of duty have been properly levied and collected, 
in accordance to the laws prescribed by Congress. 

2. I have no knowledge that articles paying a specific rate have not 
paid amount of duty prescribed by Congress. 

3. I do not know. 

4. I have no knowledge relative to collusion between any persons; 
believe the packages sent are a fair sample of the goods invoiced. If I 
bad any suspicions of such not being the case I would call for all the 
packages. 

5. I have noevidenceof false weighing or measuring upon the wharves. 

6. I think the existing laws need amending. I do not know. I do 
not know. I think they can be more speedily put at issue and tried. 

7. I do not know of any; still, such might exist. 

8. I do not know of any; still, such might be the case. 

9. I know of no conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the appraiser 
has reported to the collector false dutiable values. 

10. In my department there has not been any confusion, or doubt, or 
conflict of opinion in order to fix and declare the dutiable value. 

11. I have no knowledge. 

12. I would frankly state that the examiner is responsible for a false 
return to the appraiser, and it is the duty of the appraiser and deputy 
appraisers to see and verify what the examiner has done, and return 
the same to the collector. The official duty of the appraiser is to cer¬ 
tify to the facts. 

13. I have no knowledge of such being the case 

14 and 15. 1 have endeavored to do my duty, and have no knowledge 
or information relative to facts stated. 

16. I would consider a specific rate of duty, by ton, pound, ounce, or 
drachm, preferable to the ad valorem rates of duty in my department, 
as it would be much easier to compute, &c. 

17. I have no knowledge. 

18. I consider it would be practicable to have consular agents to 
verify and note the market values of goods in districts like London, 
Paris, Berlin. The fees are about $2.50! 

19. I consider the power of the board of appraisers should be set aside 
when sufficient proof can be found to substantiate the facts. 

20 and 21. I know nothing. Have had no experience in these depart¬ 
ments. 

22. I presume in some cases / the high rate of duty on certain classes 
of goods—those coming in small bulk—might produce a class of smug¬ 
glers and dishonest shippers. 

23. I know nothing relative to Treasury Department being unable to 
enforce the laws here or in New York. I consider they have ample 
power to enforce the same. 


816 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

24. If such had been the case the persons or officials would have been 
informed upon by me to Treasury Department, and, in my opinion, should 
be arrested, indicted, and punished in accordance to the law. 

Yours, respectfully. 

WILLIAM W. LAMB, M. D., 
Inspector of Drugs , Philadelphia. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of Treasury Department , Washington. D. C. 


No. 214. 

WILLIAM E. DICKESON—Appointed Examiner June 6, 1883. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 21, 1885. 

Dear Sir : In reply to your circular of September 9, I beg leave to 
say I was appointed in the appraiser’s office of this port on June 6,1883, 
as chemist or polarizer of sugar, and my work since I have been here 
has been confined strictly to polarizing and laboratory work. I am not 
acquainted with the examination of goods or passing or writing up in¬ 
voices, never having had anything to do in that line. I am confined 
strictly to the sugar department, and as far as I know or have seen, 
everything in that department of this office has been carried on in strict 
compliance with the orders of the Treasury Department. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

WM. E. DICKESON, 

Chemist. 

Hon. Daniel J. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


No. 215. 

FRANCIS H. TAGGART—Appointed Temporary Cletk, Philadelphia, No¬ 
vember 15, 1882; Examiner February 19, 1883. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 22, 1885. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your circular dated 
September 9, 1885. My excuse for not answering it sooner is that I 
have been so busy that I have not had time to do so. Of some of the 
questions propounded I hav£ no personal knowledge, and therefore 
cannot answer.. I was appointed to the position of clerk in the col¬ 
lector’s office at this port in the month of November, 1882, and trans¬ 
ferred to the appraiser’s department in February, 1883. My answers 
apply to the conduct of business at this port, as I have no personal 
knowledge of the conduct of affairs at other ports. The following are 
my answers: 

1. No evidence that I know of. 

2. No. 

3. In answer to the inquiry as to the manner and by what tests the 
invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified, I reply that where 
goods are folded in yards, meters, or annes, the lengths are verified by 
counting the folds; where goods are rolled the ticket measure is gen- 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 817 


©rally accepted as correct; where doubt exists they are unrolled and 
weighed and measured, the weight per yard ascertained, and that 
weight applied in determining the lengths of like goods in the invoice. 

4. None that I ever heard of at this port. 

5. None that I am aware of. 

0. To all the questions I reply I am not familiar enough with the sub¬ 
ject to give an intelligent answer. 

7. Of my personal knowledge I do not know of any class of articles 
on which the Treasury Department has failed to levy and collect in 
New York the full amount of duty that the law prescribed. But I be¬ 
lieve special Treasury Agents Adams aud Hinds can give you valuable 
information on this subject. 

8. I have no knowledge. 

9. I do not believe that there is any evidence that the appraiser at 
this port has reported to the collector false dutiable values It is true 
goods may have been passed at less than the actual market value, but 
usually the undervaluation is discovered and the value advanced. This 
has been true since I have been connected with this office as to cutlery, 
lithographic prints, Hamburg edgings, and silks. The above-mentioned 
goods were shipped by the makers to agents. The proof of false re¬ 
turn of dutiable value by the examiner does not depend on the state¬ 
ments made by special agents of the Treasury. The affidavit of the 
consular agent abroad as to the foreign market value of merchandise 
and the private bill to the importer, if obtainable, would be evidence 
corroborating the evidence of the special agent that the merchandise 
was undervalued. 

10. There has recently been confusion and doubt in the appraiser’s 
department at this port respecting the question of dutiable values 
arising out of the charges abroad, such as putting up, preparing freight, 
from works to ship, &c. The place where the value should be fixed 
is not clearly defined at present. 

11. I cannot make such an estimate. 

12. The examiner. My salary is $1,700 per year. No. 

13. Not that I am aware of. 

14. I have no information on the subject. 

15. No reason. 

16. Such a change would be a benefit to the revenue aud help to di¬ 
minish fraud. But I do not believe that specific rates could be applied 
to all textile fabrics. 

17. I think they have. I believe the law respecting the seizure of books 
and papers of parties discovered undervaluing goods is a good law, and 
cannot be made too severe. 

18. It would not be practicable in the large American consular dis¬ 
tricts to personally examine all articles to be shipped thence to Amer¬ 
ican ports. But all textile fabrics can be sampled, and the law requires 
that samples shall be furnished to the consul, with the prices attached, 
so that an active energetic man as consul could ascertain whether such 
goods were being sold under the market value. In none of every ship¬ 
ment. There need not be unnecessary or vexatious delays in examin¬ 
ing values if samples are furnished to the consul. 

The usual fee is $2.50, I believe. 

19. I cannot answer the first part of this question; but I think it 
would be unwise to leave the question of dutiable value to the judiciary. 

20. The wool examiner, Assistant Appraiser John Caldwell, will an¬ 
swer this question. 

52 a 


818 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


21. I do not believe that the practice prevails at this port of the pay¬ 
ment of money by arriving passengers to inspectors of customs, either 
to facilitate or prevent an examination of baggage, or to allow dutiable 
articles to pass free. But where it does exist, if it does anywhere, if 
the private citizen would report the fact to the collector the offending- 
inspector should be punished. 

22. I think not. 

23. Wbat is said to be true of the frauds practiced on the Treasury 
Department in New York is not true of this port I do not know as to 
other ports. 

24. I cannot answer, except they were protected by their superiors 
in office, as is very generally believed. 

Respectfully submitted. 

FRANCIS H. TAGGART, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

/Secretary of the Treasury 1 Washington 1). G. 


No. 216. 

I. S. TOMLINSON—Appointed Clerk May 7, 1883; Examiner October 16, 1883. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 

Appraiser’s Office , September 24, 1885. 

Sir : Having had less than two years experience in the customs 
service of the Government, my knowledge and information in relation 
to the various questions propounded by you is necessarily very limited 
and will apply only to the port of Philadelphia. 

I would therefore respectfully reply to the several questions as fol¬ 
lows, viz: 

1. I have no knowledge of any. 

2. None. 

3. My duties being confined to the examination of minerals, metals, 
machinery, manufactures of metals, lumber, &c., I have no knowledge 
of textile fabrics. 

4. 1 have no knowledge of any. 

5. I have no knowledge of any. My observations of the weighing of 
cargoes, when 1 have seen it done at the vessels I have visited to ex¬ 
amine the cargoes, aie that the weighers are competent, accurate, and 
reliable. 1 have never known an instance where their returns have 
been disputed. 

6. I have no knowledge of this subject. 

7. I have no knowledge of this subject. 

8. I do not know. 

9. I do not know of any evidence. 

10. Yes, in the matter of freight and charges. No, in regard to the 
place of the principal markets of the country of production or exporta¬ 
tion, as in the case of Portland cement, Bessemer steel, wire rods, &c. 
Where invoices are made out at the places of production and freights 
and transportation to ports of shipment are added the charges to ports 
of shipment are not included in the dutiable value, while the same arti¬ 
cle, invoiced at the port of shipment, the price at which such article is 
bought or sold in that market is made the dutiable value, which amount 
includes the Height and transportation charges from the manufactory 
t o said port. At factories farthest from the shipping port the prices of 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 819 


the articles are lower ancl the transportation charges are higher than 
those nearer to the shipping port, yet the prices of the articles average 
about the same ; which fact goes to show that the principal market of 
the country of production for exported goods is the port at which they 
are shipped. This principle is in a measure involved in the Depart¬ 
ment ruling of February 8, 1884 (S. S. 6158). 

11. Yes, where the articles are large or bulky. 

12. (1) Clause ‘‘The Examiner”; (2) Salary, $1,700 per annum; (3) No. 

13. Not to my knowledge. 

14. I have no knowledge of this subject. 

15. No reason. 

16. Where it could be applied. 

17. I do not know. 

18. Yes; I believe it would be practicable for an honest, intelligent 1 2 3 4 
and industrious person to examine articles and verify the invoiced 
values. As consuls can compel the furnishing of samples of articles 
invoiced with prices attached, or withhold the certificate until the de¬ 
mand is complied with, it would be practicable for them to obtain the 
true market values. 

19. I do not believe it would be safe to give powers of decision to per¬ 
sons who have no practical knowledge of the articles in dispute. 

20. I have no knowledge of this subject. 

21. I do not believe the practice exists at this port. 

22. No. 

23. Not at this port to my knowledge. 

24. I do not know, unless guilty parties (if such there be) have been 
protected by those in authority over them. 

Very respectfully, 

1. S. TOMLINSON, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 217. 

J. K. KERR—Appointed Examiner September 18, 1882. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 

Apprasiefs Office , October 5, 1885. 

Sir : Your confidential circular of the 9th ultimo was duly received. 
The great press of business in this department is my apology for not 
replying sooner. I would respectfully say that my position as exam¬ 
iner and entire confinement to the examination room gives me little op¬ 
portunity to gain information on many of the questions asked. 1 here¬ 
with inclose answers as far as my intormation on the subjects extends. 
Very respectfully, 

JAS. K. KERR, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). 0. 

1. None to my knowledge. 

2. None that I am aware of. 

3. Being the examiner of china, glass, earthenware, bronzes, and 
fancy goods generally, I could not express an opinion on textile fabrics. 

4. None that I am aware of. 



820 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


5. My time being occupied entirely in the examination room, I have 
no means of knowing what is being done on the wharf. I have never 
heard of any disputes on this question. 

6. Have no knowledge on this subject. 

7. I do not know of any, nor have I any information on the recent in¬ 
vestigations in New Yo; , but think the Department could collect the 
full amount of duty by honest examiners who understood the value of 
the merchandise they are passing on, and see that prices and discounts 
are correct, and are honest in their classifications of the duties. 

8. Having no information of the facts of the investigations in New 
Y r ork I cannot answer this question. 

9. I have no evidence of any. 

10. First, none to my knowledge; second, yes. 

11. I cannot say, but think there could. 

12. All may be considered. Primarily, the examiner, which may in¬ 
volve appraiser and assistant appraisers. Salary of examiner, $1,700 
per annum. 

13. Not that I am aware of. 

14. None to my knowledge. 

15. No reason. But can be prevented by honest appointments. 

16. What little information I have on textile fabrics, I think, at least, 
a portion could. 

17. I do not know. 

18. First, yes; if proper men of business were appointed to these 
positions and would give their time and attention to investigating these 
matters they would be of great service to the appiaiser’s department 
especially, by furnishing true values and other general information ; sec¬ 
ond, in almost all the large districts, if they would take the trouble the 
merchant takes, who visits these places to make his purchases. About 
$2,50. No consular’s certificate required under $100. 

19. As an examiner 1 do not think I am able to give an opinion on this 
question, but I think the parties should have a practical knowledge of 
the merchandise in dispute. 

20. 1 could not give a satisfactory answer, as the wool question is a 
very complicated one and entirely out of my department. 

21. Not at this port to my knowledge. 

22. No. 

23. Not at this port that I am aware of. 

24. 1 do not know of any j this would belong to persons having knowl¬ 
edge of these facts. 

JAS. K. KERB, 

Examiner . 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 821 


No. 218. 


G. C. M. EICHOLTZ—Appointed Examiner February 8, 1876. 


Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 5,1885. 

Sir : In answer to the several questions propounded in your confi¬ 
dential circular of September 9tli ultimo, I have the honor to report as 
follows in the order in which they are asked. 

Yours respectfully, 


G. C. M. EICHOLTZ. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


1. I have no knowledge of any violation of tbe law as prescribed. 

2. I have no knowledge that the full amount of duties upon articles 
paying specific rates of duty has not been collected. 

3. 1 am not in the dry-goods department and cannot state positively 
what methods are in vogue in regard to the measuring of textile fabrics. 

4. I have no knowledge of any. 

5. I have no knowledge of any false weighing or measuring on tbe 
wharves. 

6. I do not feel myself competent to answer. 

7. I am not able to specify any articles coming into the port of New 
York upon which the full amount of duties has not been collected. 

8. I am not able to state. 

9. I have no knowledge of any such practices. 

10. I am not aware of any conflict of opinion existing in this depart¬ 
ment in regard to the fixing of values. The time, place, and standard 
already sufficiently defined by the statutes. 

11. I am not able to say nor am I able to identify the invoices so 
undervalued. 

12. The examiner I think is primarily responsible for a false return 
of value to the collector. The salary of such officer at this port is 
$1,700 per annum. The appraiser usually aecepts the values taken by 
the examiners and deputy appraisers. 

13. Not that 1 am aware of. 

14. I cannot answer correctly. 

15. I have no knowledge of any bribery or corruption in this depart¬ 
ment. 

16. I consider a change from ad valorem to specific rates where 
practicable the only safeguard against undervaluation. I think specific 
rates could be applied to most textile fabrics. 

17. I am not in a position to know. 

18. I do not think it would be practicable, and would occasion many 
complaints from delays. Tbe consular fee in London and England is 
now $2.50 for certifying all invoices. 

19. la nmot able to state correctly. 

20. I have no knowledge that such practices prevail. The only rem¬ 
edy is the careful selection of men of known integrity. 

21. I have no knowledge upon the subject of wool, never having had 
anything to do in that department. 

22. I think the rate of duty imposed upon oil paintings and statuary 
might with advantage to the Government be reduced. Tbe rates now 


822 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


exacted being so high, and the articles in question frequently costing 
very large amounts of money, and the difficulty in ascertaining values, 
the temptation to undervalue is very great. 

23. I am not able to say. 

24. That I am unable to say. 


No. 219. 

H. A. FISHER—Appointed Examiner February 8, 1876. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 
Appraisers Office , October 3, 1885. 

Sir : Your circular letter, dated September 30, was duly received, 
urging immediate reply to twenty-four questions in circular marked 
u strictly confidential,” sent to me on the u 27th ultimo.” Allow me to 
apologize for the delay, and to excuse it by the overwhelming press¬ 
ure of business in the dry-goods department of this office ; also to say 
the circular in question is before me and is dated September 9, instead 
of August 27, as stated. 

Appreciating the importance of as full replies as possible, I have 
endeavored to give a sincere, clear reflection of my experience on the 
•subjects named. Replies herewith inclosed. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

H. A. FISHER. 

Hou. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. 

1. The writer is not aware of any material deviation from the rates of 
duty prescribed by law, under the decisions of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment, at the port of Philadelphia, excepting perhaps with regard to 
wool, and he is not familiar enough with this article to discuss it. Ir¬ 
regular and doubtful decisions, many of which have already been re¬ 
versed, have led to loss to the revenue. 

2. The writer is not aware of any satisfactory evidence that full spe¬ 
cific rates have not been collected. 

3. In this office the lengths of such textile fabrics as silks, satins, and 
ribbons are from time to time tested by counting the folds or “plis,” 
usually one dune or meter in length, for silks and satins. Ribbons are 
invoiced at prices for the European standard of length, 14.40 and 15 
meter pieces, and put up for the American market in 9-meter lengths, 
and a rebate deducted for the difference. The 9-meter length is fre¬ 
quently tested by actual measurement. It might be stated that the 
writer in his estimation of the value of silk goods takes the weight as 
one of his bases for such value. This, it will be observed, is a decided 
check upon fraudulent lengths as well. 

4. None that writer is aware of. 

5. None that writer is aware of. 

0. Decidedly, yes. It is full of auomalies, double provisions, and- 
irregularities leading to endless disputes. The provision for hat trim, 
mings, p. 448, and for all manufactures of silk, and silk chief value, 
p. 383, might be cited; webbings, p. 495, and manufactures of silk, 
chief value, 383; the double provisions for manufactures of hair, in p- 
363, wool schedule, and in p. 445, sundries. The latter the Depart 
ment has decided to prevail (lately revised), notwithstanding it is the 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


823 


lower rate. Also the Department’s decisions that rabbit-hair yarn is a 
manufacture of fur. The act of March 3, 1883, is worse than its prede¬ 
cessor in this respect. Reference might also be made to the section re¬ 
pealing duties on charges, its loose wording leading to immense litiga¬ 
tion. The writer has no knowledge of the record of suits—has no 
access thereto. He thinks iuterest should be paid, and also that a spe¬ 
cial court of claims would greatly expedite Government cases. 

7. Silks, silk and cotton goods, cotton embroideries, and ribbons, so 
far as the knowledge of writer is concerned. The evidence in the 
opinion of writer is incontrovertible that the Government has failed 
during recent years to levy and collect the full amount of duties under 
the law. This loss is not the main evil. Within the writer’s experience 
all honest trade, nearly, in cotton embroideries (Hamburg edgings) and 
Swiss machine-made laces has been transferred to so-called American 
houses abroad and their agents here in seven years’ time by the failure 
to collect the full amoun t of the duty. The evideuce of this is lengthy but 
conclusive, and in the possesion of the Department. Seven years ago 
85 per cent, of cotton embroideries were honestly purchased, now nearly 
90 per cent, are consigned. This has been strenuously fought by the- 
officers of this port. The Department finally sanctioned 10 per cent, ado 
vance on the bare cost of materials and labor as market value, which ns 
more than covered factory and office expenses. The Department appear, 
now to be making a vigorous and successful effort to cope with this fraud 

The transferral of the silk trade is of older date, and the remedy is 
difficult. It needs the full co operation and direction of the Department. 
The standard of market value of silks appears to have been destroyed for 
the American market by the manufacturers abroad by their refusal to 
make franc prices, and to sell only to a buyer abroad in dollars and 
cents through their American agent, and deliver duties paid. Build¬ 
ing up a market value, based upon the cost of materials and labor, is the 
lawful remedy, but is somewhat arbitrary, being too low or too high, as 
supply and demand may affect the article. The writer (without suffi¬ 
cient attention to the subject of change of duty) would simply suggest 
a square yard duty on silks based upon a clear, intelligent division of the 
various kinds and qualities, not upon price. He would also suggest a 
discriminatory duty, say of 20 per cent., on consigned goods, about the 
average amount of undervaluation in addition to ordinary duties. This 
would protect the honest purchaser from having the European manu¬ 
facturer flood his market here with all the balances of his stock, warps 
worked out of looms, &c. These are sent here to his agent on consign¬ 
ment to be sold for the best price they will bring, and probably in¬ 
voiced at about cost. Practically the protective feature of the tariff* 
does not protect even the honest importers, much less the manufac¬ 
turer here, under the system of consignment. 

The writer has replied to question 7 to the best of his ability and 
knowledge, and endeavored to show that in his opinion the failure to 
levy and collect the full amount of the duties under the law is due: (1) 
To the law itself; (2) to the lack of sustaining support principally from 
the Treasury Department during recent years; and, lastly, to want of 
uniformity and system in the action of local appraisers and examiners 
at the larger ports, and the general failure of reappraisements to fairly 
sustain such efforts as have been made. Some system should be de¬ 
vised to secure uniform action at least at the ports of Philadelphia^ 
Boston, New York, and Baltimore. 


824 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


8. Tlie writer does not think the failure has come about either from 
the ignorance or indolence or dishonesty of Treasury officials. The 
writer knows of no reliable evidence of guilty knowledge or a conspiracy 
among the higher class of Treasury or custom-house officials. The 
irregular and astonishing decisions have been cause for suspicion only. 

9. This question has already been answered negatively as to false re¬ 
turns by the local appraisers. The trouble bas pervaded the Treasury 
Department* the general appraisers, and the local appraisers. The dif¬ 
ficulty lies deeper than mere false returns could account for, and the 
writer has endeavored to explain his view. There are comparatively 
few false invoices made out, and those mostly by small retail buyers. 
The trouble is almost altogether on consigned goods, and the different 
views as to what constitutes market value. There is no actual invoice 
for consigned goods—it is merely a pro forma invoice, and when 
the manufacturer comes to fix the basis for the collection of a 50 
per cent, duty, in order to send his goods here for sale, there is 
necessarily a wide divergence of opinion as to the law for true 
market value. The want of a clear interpretation of this part of law, 
and a vigorous enforcement of that interpretation of the law, has 
led to the undervaluation. The system has been in operation JO 
years, at least. The class of articles, principally silks, cotton, embroid¬ 
eries, wool and woolens, ribbons, within the writer’s experience. The 
articles are shipped generally by the makers to their agents. The same 
general condition of things has existed at the larger ports, in less 
degree perhaps, than New York. As to the latter part of question, 
“what evidence is there to sustain the Treasury special agents or con¬ 
sular agents, as against the official action of the appraising department,” 
the writer would say that in the nature of such a dispute, there is very 
little direct evidence, excepting in the goods themselves—evidence of 
similar values on bona fide purchased invoices. The calculations of 
the cost of manufacture made by the consular agents are, at best, good 
guides and help only. The market value, as has been urged, may be 
lower than such cost, or very considerably higher. The Treasury 
special agents, as a rule, take extreme views. The appraiser and his 
examiners occupy a judicial position, perhaps, and are limited in their 
action by what they are able to sustain. The writer’s almost sole ex¬ 
planation of the failure to fully meet the undoubted undervaluations 
that is the Treasury Department has not sustained its officers—includ¬ 
ing the Treasury special agents—in their efforts to put values up to the 
standard now sought for. The advances heretofore made have been 
irregular—largely resulting in centering the trade in New York— 
and probably, on the average, have not more than half covered the 
actual undervaluation. The appraisers have done probably the best 
they could under the circumstances. Properly they ought to seek the 
co-operation and assistance of the Treasury special agents. That they 
have not done so generally perhaps is due to general demoralization 
and because they were not good appraisers. The evidence is hardly 
against the appraising department, but against the law and whole gen¬ 
eral administration of it. 

10. This question has been largely answered affirmatively. The 
standard of “ true market value” is not clearly defined. Prices vary 15 
to 20 per cent, on certain goods to varying buyers, varying quantities, 
and special contracts. Manufacturers who consign all their goods have 
no market value, hence no standard except building up one from mate¬ 
rials, labor, and the variable ideas of expenses and profit. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 825 


The port of New York, with its large preponderance of the imports 
of the country, ought to be able to fix a standard of valuation; and 
some system looking to a close communication for comparison and in¬ 
formation from that center would be of great service. Whether a high, 
moderate, or low standard be adopted, it would at least have the merit 
of being uniform. 

11. The writer does not think the undervaluation is the “act” of the 
appraiser. He is of opinion that the average undervaluation of silk 
goods and cotton embroideries for the last five years has been 20 to 25 
per cent—that is, less than actual purchases of similar goods. How 
much of this has been met by appraisers’ advances, how much has been 
justified by the difference in character of consigned and purchased 
goods, and, finally, how much of the balance (probably one-third to one- 
half) it has been impossible to sustain owing to the failure of reappraise¬ 
ment under the methods in vogue prior to the recent orders of the 
Treasury Department, are questions that can be more intelligently an¬ 
swered. Treasury special agents and examiners alike have met with 
defeat in their repeated efforts in the general appraisers’ rooms. Such 
invoices can be readily indentified, the writer thinks. 

12. The examiner, undoubtedly. In Philadelphia the salary of such 
officers is $1,700 for all, with the exception of the silk examiner (the 
writer), which is $2,900 per annum. The appraiser, ordinarily, merely 
certifies to the examination, unless a dispute is raised, and he in¬ 
vestigates. The deputy appraisers in Philadelphia have been mere 
ciphers so far as a revision of the valuations by examiners was con¬ 
cerned. They have been detailed to examine certain lines of goods 
themselves, and acted as examiners. The examiners have virtually 
the whole responsibility, excepting iu such cases in dispute and brought 
before the appraiser personally. In this connection the writer would 
like to say a word in regard to the salaries paid to examiners in Phila¬ 
delphia. Not one receives the limit allowed by law—$2,500. The sal¬ 
aries are not sufficient to sustain the grade of the office. The ability 
required, the close application, and, above all, the thorough integrity 
needed in an office where so much responsibility is rested, requires an 
officer who, from his proper association and character, must rank above 
an ordinary clerk. The writer is of opinion that the salaries now paid 
will not secure a class of officers high enough in grade to secure the 
efficiency now sought for and required. Many men will seek the office. 
There may be some accidents that will strand some men into such posi¬ 
tions who are sufficiently capable, but the general failure of previous 
administrations to overcome the inline difficulty would appear to sug¬ 
gest that the fountain-head for this port, as well as others, be looked 
into and improved. 

13. The writer is aware of no such evidence. 

14. The writer thinks it cannot fairly be said that such is the case. 

15. The question is covered by the reply to question 14. 

16. No. If bribery exists it would be more effective with most specific 
rates than ad valorem rates, provided the existing quantities of duties 
are levied. Specific rates are possible for some textile fabrics. Such 
specific rates that have limitations as to value, in writer’s opiuiou, offer 
more opportunity to fraud and dispute than purely ad valorem rates. 
The specific part of the compound du'y on woolen dress goods and woolen 
and worsted yarns, and the purely specific duty on cotton yarns and 
warps under the present law, might be cited as instances. These limi- 



826 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


tations as to value for specific rates offer great temptation to the im¬ 
porter to get liis goods just below the rank to which they belong, if they 
are close to the line, by a very slight undervaluation, or by averaging 
prices (keeping the total amount correct) gets more at lower rates than 
proper. There are no more equitable duties than ad valorem. They 
should not be excessive, and they require absolutely honest, intelligent 
business methods in their uniform enforcement. 

17. The writer is not familiar with practical workings of the moiety 
act, its repeal taking place before his appointment. He has no very 
good opinion of it. 

18. The writer thinks it would not be practicable. The reports now 
received from Zurich, Lyons, Bfile, and Horgen are useful and of great 
assistance, especially where values have to be built up on silk goods. 
Beyond that the writer does not think it practicable to go. Ho not 
know the fees exacted. 

19. The writer thinks it would be safe for the executive to have wider 
control for the sake of establishing uniformity of valuation. This is the 
great trouble—lack of uniformity, the different general appraisers 
having their own particular views, and their judgment being absolutely 
final. 

20. The writer has no records or knowledge of the history or examina¬ 
tion or practical working of the present law as to the duties on wool. 

21. The writer knows very little about the question practically, but 
thinks the existing law might be liberalized considerably as to passen¬ 
gers from abroad. 

22. The writer thinks the existing rates on woolen dress goods and 
garments, cottons, and silk goods is too high, and possibly offers great 
temptations to smugglers and undervaluers. The latter class are now 
powerful, and have always had their influence when they combine. 

23. Yes. Not in same proportion, but generally. Boston and Phila¬ 
delphia are too near New York not to follow in her wake. 

24. The writer does not believe the so-named false returns made by 
appraisers have been criminal in’their character. 

H. A. FISHER, 
Examiner , Port of Philadelphia. 


No. 220. 

W. W. DEANS—Appointed Examiner May 19, 1880. 

Port of Philadelphia, Pa., 
Appraiser’s Office , October 6, 1885. 

Sir: Your circular of the 9th ultimo is received, and I herewith have 
the honor of replying. The iuquiries to which you desire replies cover 
a very broad field, and I would say that what I may write refers only 
to the way in which the business of the custom-house is conducted at 
this port. When I was appointed to the position of examiner in the 
appraiser’s department I was assigned to duty as examiner of sugar and 
molasses specially, though I have had some experience in the examina¬ 
tion of other classes of goods, chiefly liquors. Consequently, not having 
had the practical experience in the examination of goods outside of the 
classes above mentioned, my knowledge is limited in regard to the 
value of dry goods, &c., and most of the matters to which your ques¬ 
tions refer. 1 make reply to the questions as follows: 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 827 


1. I know of no evidence that the rates of duty have not within the 
last few years been levied and collected as the law prescribed. 

2. I know of no evidence that on articles which the law says shall pay 
specific rates, the full amount of duty has not been collected. 

3. I do not know. 

4. I know of none. 

5. I know of no false or incompetent weighing or measuring on the 
wharves. 

G. I have no knowledge of the subject. 

7. I know of no facts or satisfactory evidence that the Treasury De¬ 
partment has failed to collect in New York, or any other port, the full 
amount of duty that the law prescribed. 

8. I do not know. 

9. I have no knowledge of any. 

10. There has not been, to my knowledge, any serious confusion or 
conflict of opinion in order to declare dutiable value. 

11. I do not know. 

12. The examiner. No. 

13. 1 know of none. 

14. I think not. 

15. There is no reason—in my opinion. 

16. I think it would. 

17. 1 do not know. 

18. I don’t think it would. I think the consuls themselves, if they 
attended to their duties properly, would be able to answer this ques¬ 
tion more intelligently than any one else. 

19. I don’t think it would. 

20. I know nothing about it. 

21. No such practice exists at this port. 

22. I do not know. 

23. It has not. 

24. I do not know. 

Very respectfully, 

W. W. DEANS, 

Examiner. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


£28 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


PORT HURON. 


No. 221. 

W. L. BANCROFT—Appointed Temporary Collector and Inspector, Detroit, April 
30, 1853; Collector June 2*2, 1885. 

Custom-House, Port Huron, Mich., 
Collectors Office , September 8, 1885. 
Sir : In reply to confidential circular dated August 27,1885,1 have the 
honor to report: I find that the range of inquiries in the circular cover 
transactions of which there are very few at this port, and that no facts 
pertaining thereto and likely-to *be valuable to you can be collated trom 
any records in this office. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. L. BANCROFT, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. 


PORT OF PORTLAND, ME. 


No. 222. 

FREDERICK N. DOW—Appointed Collector January 30, 1883. 

Custom-House, Portland, Me., 
Collector's Office , September 5, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communica¬ 
tion of the 27th ultimo, marked “strictly confidential,” and hasten to 
make replies to such of the questions therein asked as 1 am able to with 
the information within my reach. 

The comparatively limited range in the variety of merchandise im¬ 
ported at this port necessarily narrows my field and limits my capacity 
o speak from experience of many of the topics broached. 

Replying to your inquiries in their order, and referring to them by 
number, I have to say: 

1. That I have no such evidence. 

2. I have no such evidence. 

3. The importation of textile fabrics at this port are few; but it has 
been the custom of the appraisers to verify invoices, always by weight, 
and from time to time by actual measurement, to satisfy themselves of 
the correctness of the invoice. 

4. There is no evidence of any such collusion at this port. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 829 


5. No evidence of any false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or 
measuring on the wharves. There is more or less complaint on the part 
of importers from time to time, but there has been but one case within 
two years where a regauging was granted, and no case of reweighing; 
within that time. 

6. There has been but one suit against the collector of this port for- 
several years, and that before my accession to office. I have therefore- 
no information upon the subject matter of the inquiry. 

7. No knowledge upon this point. 

8 and 9. The same answer must be made. 

10. I know of no cases of doubt in the appraisers’ department at this-, 
port not readily solved. 

11. No instance of undervaluation has occurred at this port to my 
knowledge; and as I am informed, none for several years. 

12. At this port there are no examiners, and the work usually per¬ 
formed by them at large ports devolves upon the appraiser and assist¬ 
ant appraiser, who act together or separately, as exigencies arise. Their 
salaries are respectively $3,000 and $2,500. 

The above statement must be modified so far as polariscopic tests of 
sugar are concerned. These, under authority of the Department, are 
made without extra compensation by a weigher and gauger, whose salary 
as such is $2,000. 

For the correctness of such tests such officer is primarily responsible,, 
though the duties are assessed upon the certificate of the appraiser or 
the assistant, as the case may be. 

13. We have no evidence at this port upon this point. 

14. No evidence. 

15. I think no reason can be cited. 

16. The elimination, in ascertaining what duty is to be paid upon a 
given article, of all consideration of the cost of its production or its. 
price in the chief markets in the country of its origin or intrinsic value 
to its consumer would necessarily remove many elements of uncertainty, 
and therefore opportunities for mistakes and fraud, and this would be 
true, 1 think, without reference to the quantity of duty to be levied. 
Specific rates could be applied to all textile fabrics. But it would seem 
that such duties would necessarily be either in very low proportion to 
the value of high-cost goods, or very high proportion to the values of 
cheaper goods of the same species. 

17. No evidence here upon this point. It is but natural to expect 
that the zeal of informers would be lessened, and the danger to im¬ 
porters of detection decreased by the legislation referred to. 

18. I do not think it practicable. The only information obtainable 
at this office in regard to fees exacted by consuls for certifying invoices 
is from the invoices presented. The regular fee of $2.50 allowed by 
consular regulations appears to have been collected in each case. I 
think that importers of small articles of little value do not usually pre¬ 
sent their invoices to the consul for certification as under Art. 328, T. 
K.; where the value of an importation does not exceed $100 collectors 
may admit the same to entry by appraisement. 

19. As reliance must somewhere ultimately be placed in human judg¬ 
ment, I am of the opinion that the nearer to the article to be examined, 
that authority is placed the greater the opportunity for a correct ap¬ 
praisal. 


830 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


21. I Lave no competent evidence on this point, but liave no doubt 
from what I hear that such is the case. Jt would probably be difficult 
altogether to suppress it, but a rigid discipline and efficient supervision 
of the inspecting force would contribute to that end. 

22. No evidence at this port upon this point. 

23. Same. 

24. Same. 

Very respectfully, 

FEED. N. DOW, 

Collector. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. C. 


No. 223. 


SIDNEY PERHAM—Appointed Appraiser September 22, 1877. 

Custom House, Portland, Me., 

Appraisers Office, September 15, 1885. 

Sir: I have the honor to submit the following answers to your com¬ 
munication of August 27: 

1. I am of the opinion that the rates of duty have been applied and 
collected at this port as the law prescribes. 

2. I have no evidence that the duties have not been collected in ac¬ 
cordance with the law. I believe they have been. 

3. Our practice is to measure one piece at least of each invoice of tex¬ 
tile fabrics, but we have always found them to correspond substantially 
with the invoice. 

4. Nothing of the kind has occurred here to my knowledge. 

5. There is no such evidence that has come to my knowledge. I be¬ 
lieve this work has been faithfully and honestly performed. 

10. There has been no confusion of the kind at this office The rules 
to be applied are quite clearly laid down in the laws and decisions. 

12. At this port the appraiser exercises more or less personal super¬ 
vision in the examination of goods and generally assists in such exam¬ 
ination. In the larger ports, of course, it is impossible for the ap- 
praisers to do this, and the examiners must be held primarily and chiefly 
responsible. 

13, 14, and 15. I have no such evidence. 

16. I am of the opinion that specific duties, so far as they are practi¬ 
cable, are preferable to ad valorem duties, and that specific rates may 
be applied to more classes of textile fabrics. 

18. I am not sufficiently acquainted in relation to consular agents to 
give an opinion that would aid the Department. The fees of consuls, 
as appears by invoices received at this port, are generally $2.50 for each 
invoice. 

19. I think there might be serious difficulties arising from the execu¬ 
tive or judicial power interfering with the ascertainment of dutiable 
values, except so far as to give interpretation to the laws applicable 
thereto. 

20. The importations of wool into this port are very small, and my ex¬ 
perience has not been sufficient to enable me to make recommendations 
that would aid the Department; but it has appeared to me that experts 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


831 


in this direction might be able to devise a plan that would simplify the 
present rates of duties and render them very much easier of execution. 

21. I have no evidence that any such practice lias existed at this 
port. 

22. There is unquestionably in the rate of duties a line beyond which 
if Congress should attempt to go would open the way for smugglers and 
dishonest importers to prevent the fair execution of the law, but I do 
not*recall any difficulty of this kind for several years at least. 

6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 23, and 24. My knowledge of the operation of the law 
has been chiefly confined to this port, and the officers at the larger ports 
will be able to furnish information not within my knowledge. 

Very respectfully, 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of Treasury . 


SIDNEY PERHAM, 

Appraiser. 


PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND. 


No. 224. 


H. F. BEECHER—Appointed Collector June 8, 1885. 

Custom-House, Port Townsend, Wash., 

Collector's Office , September 10, 1885. 

Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of Department circular 
dated August 27, 1885 ( u Strictly confidential,” in red ink, upper left- 
hand corner), requesting me to inform the Department regarding cer¬ 
tain twenty-four questions, answers of which 1 have the honor to give 
herewith: 

1. In the past four years I can find, from a hurried examination, no 
evidence but what full duties have been collected as the law prescribes. 

2. None. 

3. Very few, if any, and they merely passenger effects. 

4. I have none. 

5. None. 

6. No differences; no suits. Importations nearly all specific. Have 
had no occasion to note any improvement that could be made in the 
existing laws. 

7 and 8. I am not informed. 

9. There is no appraiser in this district. The collector acts in that 
capacity. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). Not that I am aware of. 

10. These three parties in this district are centered in one, the col¬ 
lector; therefore there is no conflict of opinion. 

11. No average can be made; specific duties the rule in this district. 

12. Same as answer 9. No salary. 

13. No evidence. 

14. I am not aware of any such transactions. 

15. I do not think that any such influences are at work here. 



832 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


16. I think it would. Specific rates would certainly change the effects 
of undervaluation. 

17. Repeal of the 11 moiety law” has had no effect in this matter, but 
has debarred the collectors in getting information leading to seizures of 
contraband goods. 

18. I do not know. 

19. No. 

20. No wools imported into this district. 

21. In this district inspectors board the steamers at Victoria, B. C., 
inspecting all baggage while in transit between that port and this. If 
money has been offered no complaints are made at this office. No way 
to prevent except through fear of instant discharge if caught. 

22. Yes. In this district upon opium and China wines. 

23. Unable to say. 

24. Am not aware of a*ry false reports having been made in this dis¬ 
trict; hence there has been no need of arrest and punishment. 

Without further time, in order to make an exhaustive examination of 
all the books and records in this office, I am unable to give the Depart¬ 
ment a more thorough reply, the above being from a hurried reference 
to them. 

The Department circular being so much in reference to the Atlantic 
coast, and the imports of this district being so much of a specific char¬ 
acter, I am at a loss how to answer many of the questions as the Depart¬ 
ment might desire. 

I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 

H. F. BEECHER, 

Collector . 


Hon. D. Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. 


PORT OF ST. LOUIS. 


No. 225. 

CHARLES M. WHITNEY—Appointed Surveyor August 17,1882. 

Custom-House, Saint Louis, Mo., 

Surveyors Office , October 1, 1885. 

Sir: Replying to circular marked confidential, dated August 27 r 
1885, I feel that an experience gained at an interior port like Saint 
Louis but poorly qualifies me to answer. To such questions as I have 
been able to arrive at any conclusions satisfactory to myself, I will 
briefly state them. 

1. 1 know of no evidence that the rates of duty have not been col¬ 
lected as prescribed by law. But undoubtedly mistakes have been 
made by the appraiser by placing goods in the wrong class. 

2. In answer to this I should saj T , no. 

3. Invoice measurements of textile fabrics are verified at this port 
as follows: The correctness of the width is verified by actual measure 
merits by the examiners, and the woolen goods are weighed in every 
case whether marked on the invoice or not. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 833 


4. I not only have no evidence, but no ground for suspicion that any 
tnlse package has ever been sent to the appraiser as a fair sample of 
one in ten, or that there has ever been any attempt at collusion on the 
part of any one to do so. 

5. None here. 

6. There is but one suit of the character mentioned now pending 
(at least only one has been brought during the last three years in Saint 
Louis). I do not think there is any necessity for a new tribunal to try 
suits of this character, but believe a plan may be devised by which the 
existing system may be made efficient. The creation of one tribunal 
located at Washington would not be satisfactory, and the creation of 
one in each of the cities named would involve very great expense with* 
out corresponding advantage. 

7. I understand that silks, laces, and velvets have been entered at 
New York at less than their full value. I do not think that this admits 
of doubt. 

8. This is chiefly, in my opinion, because the examiners have not 
been able to determine the correct market value of the goods, and have 
taken the invoice value as correct. This has arisen rather from the 
ignorance, and sometimes indolence of the officers, than dishonesty. I 
should say there was no evidence to show a guilty knowledge of the 
failure, or a conspiracy to promote it, among the higher class of Treas¬ 
ury or custom-house officials. 

0 and 10. The only evidence we have as a rule of the market values 
in Europe is from reports by consuls and special agents, published price 
currents, and a comparison of prices in invoices of similar goods to 
different importers. 1 do not think there is any evidence that duties as 
prescribed by law have not been collected according to the understand¬ 
ing of the law by the collector and appraiser. As to the market value 
of goods in a foreign country consuls and special agents have 
opportunities for information not possessed by local appraisers, and 
goods are sometimes sold by responsible importers at a figure 
which would indicate that some advantage had been obtained. This 
statement is based on what is often claimed and seems to be ad¬ 
mitted with reference to New York importers. So far as there 
has been any confusion or doubt in the appraiser’s department at this 
port respecting dutiable values, it appears to have arisen from the dif¬ 
ficulty of the ascertainment of facts. The time, place, and standard 
are, in the opinion of the appraising officers, already defined in the 
statutes. The question of classification sometimes gives trouble, and 
by error of judgment a wrong rate may be sometimes assessed. In my 
opinion it would be of great benefit to the service, and tend to secure a 
more uniform assessment of duty, if the appraisers at all ports of prom¬ 
inence were to meet annually for comparison of views, usage, and 
practice. It is true that the Department decisions, published weekly, 
are to a great extent a guide, but there are many questions presented 
constantly to appraisers for adjustment which may never come before 
the Department by protest and appeal. 

11. No. 

12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible. His salary is 
$1,400 per annum. Ordinarily the appraiser is not much else than one 
who officially certifies to the values as fixed by the examiner. There are 
exceptions. When in doubt he is consulted. 

13. No. 

53 A 


834 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

14. 1 do not think false values have been systematically or habitu¬ 
ally reported to the several collectors. If money has been paid to get 
false reports, I cannot say where it has been raised or by whom paid 

15. None. 

16. Yes; for it would necessitate collusion between two or more 
officials. Where articles have a specific rate of duty the proper amount 
is always collected. This must be the case if the customs officers are 
honest, and dishonesty would soon be detected. However, a purely 
specific rate of duty could not be applied to all articles, viz, textile fab¬ 
rics. 

17. I think so. 

18. No, not practicable. Foreign governments would undoubtedly 
object. Fee exacted is $2.50. 

19. I do not think it would be either safe or useful to the revenues or 
just to importers that the jurisdiction of the executive or courts should 
be extended to a review of the decisions of the appraising department re¬ 
specting dutiable values; these are purely questions of fact, and if they 
could be again considered by the executive and then by the courts it 
would lead to vexations delays, and those branches of the Government 
would be obstructed by the volume of business. 

21. If certainly is believed, and any method adopted to prevent the 
payment of money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors would 
create some delay, and this would lead to complaints, but better this 
than the scandal now connected with this part of the service. All com¬ 
plaints of this nature should be rigidly examined aud offending passen¬ 
gers as well as offending officers punished. 

I understand that by the system in vogue in France, the baggage is 
taken in charge by the customs officers, and the examiners ranged side 
by side at long tables in the examining room. As there is but little 
chance of the corruption of the entire force, the danger is obviated. 

22. I think it does. 

23. Yes, but not to so great an extent. 

24. False returns have not been made at this port so far as I know, 
although mistakes have undoubtedly been made. 

Respectfully submitted. 

CHAS. M. WHITNEY, 

Surveyor of Customs. 


PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO. 


THOMAS BECK—Appointed Appraiser June 26, 1885. 

No. 226. 

Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

Appraiser’s Office , September 12, 1885. 

Dear Sir : In reply to your circular letter of August 27 I beg to say 
that a longer experience in the office of appraiser would enable me to 
give you more accurate and perhaps more intelligent answers to the 
questions contained therein. I shall reply, however, according to the 
light before me. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 835 


1. I have only hearsay evidence that full rates of duty have not been 
collected. It is notorious that for years past certain merchants have 
been invoicing their goods far below foreign cost. When a case of 
undervaluation was too flagrant to pass unnoticed the invoice was ad, 
vanced; but it was so arranged that when the importer took an appeal- 
which he invariably did, merchant appraisers were called to try the case 
who were in the same boat with the appellant, and in nine cases out of 
ten the invoice price was sustained. I have stopped all such nonsense, 
and now the Government is sustained in almost every case. 

2. As in the above, I have only hearsay evidence that the weigher has 
not always returned the true weight on cigars and opium, but if such 
nefarious practices have been resorted to my vigilance has put a stop to 
it. 

4. Frequent tests are made of quantities of invoices of textile fabrics 
by actual measurement of pieces and a comparison with the quantity 
stated on the tags, and a footing of the whole of the tags, the invoiced 
quantity is verified or found in error, but I question if this has been 
done in the past. Some goods are priced in yards, meter, or aune folds, 
while others, like cashmeres, are rolled over and over. The latter might 
contain fine laces adroitly rolled up, and if so, the fact would be dis¬ 
covered by an occasional test of the piece measurement. The great 
difficulty of re-rolling a piece of such goods would deter appraisers from 
resorting to such tests very often as it requires an expert to leave the 
goods in merchantable shape. 

5. Only hearsay. Care on the part of the collector in appointing 
none but honest men as weighers, and vigilance on his part in seeing 
that the weigher is not being tampered with, and an occasional test, are 
the only means of stopping it. The great fault with most collectors— 
and with Mr. Sears it is a grievous fault—is that they do not give per¬ 
sonal attention to the matter of seeing and knowing that every officer 
under them is doing his duty honestly. It is seldom, iudeed, that men 
are chosen to fill the minor offices on account of their true worth, but 
are often appointed to pay a political debt, and starting without char¬ 
acter, as many of them do, it is seldom that they find reformation in a 
public office. No man is fit for a public trust who is afraid to soil his 
fingers, or who depends upon others for the management of his depart¬ 
ment. 

10. There is not now, nor do I believe there recently has been, any 
doubt or confusion in the appraising department respecting any of 
the elements to be ascertained in order to fix dutiable value, but a con¬ 
flict between the appraisers and certain merchants has long existed 
respecting packing charges on bags and matting. The merchants claim 
that they purchase bags loose and pay separately for packing and baliug, 
and that they buy the matting by the yard and pay for covering in like 
manner; but I find by the Calcutta Price Current and Market Report 
that both bags and matting are quoted “free on board,” and I therefore 
refuse to allow any deduction for packing charges to be made. (I should 
like to have a ruling on this question.) 

11. Not at this port, as samples of goods have not been kept. 

12. I consider the party who examines the goods, whether appraiser, 
deputy appraiser, or examiner, responsible for a false return of value to 
the collector, but a wide-awake appraiser at a port like this can prevent, 
in a great measure, false returns. 



836 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Appraiser’s salary, $3,625 per annum; assistant appraiser, $2,500; 
examiner, $2,000, 

13,14, and 15. 1 cannot answer. 

16. With respect to a change or substitution of specific for ad valorem 
rates of duty upon textile fabrics, I beg to state that in my judgment 
they should be adopted in every case practicable, as the only successful 
means of defeating the almost universal system of undervaluation. A 
low ad valorem rate of 10 to 25 per cent, might attach to many fabrics 
in connection with the specific rate, thus materially equalizing the duties 
uj)on the same class of fabrics, but of different values. 1 understand that 
direct importations of silk at this port have fallen off to a remarkable 
degree during the past eight or ten years, owing to the system of con¬ 
signment now so largely practiced, in consequence of which many of our 
most able mercantile houses are obliged to make their purchases through 
agents in this country, at a dollar price, duty paid, laid down in New 
York, Boston, or Philadelphia. The wholesale market price of the 
goods cannot be ascertained with any degree of accuracy, and the re¬ 
venue is thus placed at the mercy of the foreign producer, who may 
invoice his goods even below the cost of production, with impunity. 
Section 9 of the act of March 3, 1883, appears to have been framed 
to meet such cases, when the foreign market value cannot be definitely 
ascertained. If the Government had a corps of able agents abroad at 
all the different manufacturing centers collecting and transmitting 
direct to the appraiser’s office reliable data respecting the value of the 
raw material at such centers, the cost of manufacturing and preparing 
the same, experience would very soon render the actions of such officers 
efficient. This, I believe, is being one at various points where silks are 
produced. 

As a basis for a change from ad valorem to specific rates, a record 
could be kept at the various ports of every description of textile fabrics 
imported, by the trade name, weight per square yard, cost per yard, meter, 
or other measurement; a description of the fabric, whether of wool or 
worsted, silk, cotten, flax, jute, or mixture of either, and as closely as 
possible in what proportion. The weight per dozen of various kinds of 
hosiery, cotton, wool, or silk, and the corresponding values. The as¬ 
certainment of such data should cover such a period as would fairly de¬ 
termine the relations of weight and measurement to the foreign value of 
the merchandise. This would form a basis for a tariff which might re¬ 
main undisturbed for years. A competent officer at each of the large 
ports could accomplish the work, retaining small samples for reference; 
such being his sole duty, the work could be done accurately, while if 
required to be done by the appraisers in connection with their custo¬ 
mary duties, the work would not be so reliable. 

At this port jute grain bags are imported by millions annually, and 
the question of value constantly arises. They are of uniform size, 22 
by 36 inches—and of uniform weight, 12 ounces—1,000 in a bale. The 
average entered value for a series of years has been, say, 5 cents,’or 
$5 per hundred—duty for ten years or more, 40 per cent, ad valorem 
equaling $2 per hundred—weighing 75 pounds—specific duty equal to 
ad valorem, 2f cents per pound. If a reduction were made to 30 per 
cent, ad valorem, in the interest of the grain-growers of this coast, 2 
cents per pound would equal it. Whether the tarift' be high or low, 
specific, compound, or ad valorem, the collection of the lawful revenue 
finally depends upon the efficiency and integrity of the executive 
officers. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


837 


17. The “moiety law” was a good one, but was abused by unprinci¬ 
pled agents of the Government, and others of like ilk, frequently for the 
sole purpose of blackmailing merchants who would rather give a bribe 
of $500 than spend $1,500 in litigation, though perhaps innocent, fear- 
ing injury to their business by public notoriety. The above abuse, no 
• doubt, led to its repeal. I believe the law should be re-enacted, with 
the most severe penalties for even an attempt at extortion. 

I shall be pleased to answer 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 just as soon 
as my other duties will permit, their consideration requires time and 
care. 

I am, dear sir, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS BECK. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). G. 


No. 227. 


Port of San Francisco, Cal., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 24, 1885. 

Dear Sir : After some little study of the remaining questions con¬ 
tained in your printed letter, I beg to continue the answers to the best 
of my ability. 

18. It would seem to be practicable for consular agents to acquaint 
themselves with the character of the merchandise produced in their 
districts and “to verify the correctness of invoice values” if the consular 
regulations prescribed by the President were diligently and intelligently 
executed, particularly sections 638, 639, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 
650, 654, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 656, and 661, Heyle, part 4, page 60. Wholesale 
prices current can be obtained of all staple articles, samples of which 
would not be required, but samples of all textile fabrics can be de¬ 
manded, representing invoices presented for classification, and their 
values closely approximated. Novelties are being placed upon the 
market continuously, upon which manufacturers expect to realize large 
profits while in fashion or demand, and of which the true cost of pro¬ 
duction is known only to themselves. Many manufacturers place tlieir 
goods upon the American market by consignment to agencies, and for 
which no foreign quotations can be had*. In such cases the consuls 
would experience difficulty in informing themselves. I would consider 
that they could more “safely and surely ascertain and report the true 
invoice values” from the consular districts in Great Britain. It is 
not likely that foreign Governments would abstain from complaint if 
American consuls made “ vexatious delays in examining values and 
certifying invoices.” The feeling is general among foreign manufact¬ 
urers and merchants that our tariff is such as to justify them in avail¬ 
ing themselves of every possible device to defeat its provisions. Many 
importers do business through shipping and commission merchants at 
Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Paris, and other points, who receive the origi¬ 
nal invoices and consignment of the goods tor shipment to the United 
States. The goods are purchased at different points, and many invoices 
are combined in one and certified by a consul unacquainted with the 
goods and prices, the local consuls being thereby deprived of both the 
fees and the opportunity to verify the correctness of the invoice values. 



838 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


This practice should be broken up, as the law, section 2854, Revised 
Statutes, requires that invoices “ shall be produced to the consul, vice- 
consul, or commercial agents of the United States nearest the place of 
shipment;” and “the place of shipment” is held to be “the place 
where the merchandise is manufactured, finished, or finally prepared 
for exportation.” Collectors should be instructed to reject all invoices • 
that do not comply with the law in this respect, and to hold custody of 
the goods at owner’s risk and expense until lawful invoices were 
produced; and consuls should be instructed to refuse certificates 
to invoices covering merchandise the product of other districts 
than their own, under penalty of dismissal. Nearly all manufact¬ 
urers publish catalogues and prices current of their productions, 
subjsct in some cases to discounts depending upon the amount 
of the sales. It must be practicable for the consular agents to pro¬ 
cure such catalogues and prices current, and to transmit them pe¬ 
riodically to the Secretary of the Treasury from all consulates. Such 
reports could be at once issued in circular form by the Treasury De¬ 
partment to collectors and appraisers for their information and guid¬ 
ance. Under section 252, Revised Statutes, the Secretary should de¬ 
mand that all invoices be expressed in the English language, and de¬ 
scriptive of the merchandise by trade designation, the values expressed 
in the currency of the country of production as at present, and as re¬ 
quired by section 2838, Revised Statutes. The fee exacted at London 
is $2.50. 

19. I do not think it would be “ safe, useful, or practicable” to extend 
the executive or judicial power over dutiable values. I would favor by 
legislative action the extension of the sphere of the Department of Jus¬ 
tice at Washington by the establishment of a bureau for the settlement 
of custom cases of every character, to cousist of five members, who shall 
have been for not less than 20 years actively engaged in mercantile 
pursuits, and the Attorney-General ex officio member, who should de¬ 
cide questions of law simply, filing his written opinion. The bureau 
should decide by majority vote all questions of classification and valu¬ 
ation of imported merchandise; should receive and consider all com¬ 
munications respecting the practical working of the tariff; make recom¬ 
mendations to, and lay before, Congress such information as would 
enable that body to act intelligently in the enactment, interpretation, 
modification, or repeal of tariff* provisions, and receive copies of all 
consular information received by the Secretary, keeping full record 
of all official action. Samples of all goods capable of being sampled 
should be forwarded to the bureau by the appraising officers, and then 
classified and recorded for reference. The bureau should take tho 
place of the board of general appraisers, and from its decisions there 
should be no appeal. It would be possible thus to detect undervalua¬ 
tions of merchandise and the port or ports at which the appraising offi¬ 
cers were either inefficient or derelict. Uniformity in valuation and 
classification is most desirable aud important, but it does not exist at 
present, but could be obtained uuder such a system. 

21. It is generally believed that at all the seaports “the practice of 
the payment of money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors” 
prevails to some extent. Dishonest persons are found both in public 
and private business, when in the former they are subject to the cor¬ 
rupting influence of the traveling public. The law should be anfended 
forbidding, under penalty of confiscation, the introduction of any article- 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


889 


of merchandse in the baggage of a passenger of either high or low de¬ 
gree. Ample facilities are now afforded for the safe transit of articles 
of necessity, wearing apparel, &c., desired b t y our people able to travel 
abroad, and they should, injustice to our importers aud manufacturers, 
be obliged to regularly invoice, manifest, and enter the goods which 
they purchase abroad. Under the latitude given heretofore to the lan¬ 
guage “persons arriving in the United States,” the revenue has been 
defrauded of millions of dollars, and great injustice done to regular im¬ 
porters and our manufacturers. Free entry of household d effects should 
be legally confined to such household goods as have been, without 
question, in actual use, and belonging to bona fide immigrants to the 
United States only, and in value not to exceed $1,000 by actual 
appraisement. 

20. Very little wool is imported at this port, and that is of inferior 
grade and on the skin. 

22. There are various reasons for failure “to collect the whole duty 
prescribed by law.” In many cases the rates are excessive, notably, 
upon opium for smoking, cigars, silk, sparkling wines, &c., but these 
are all luxuries, and should pay high duties, and would doubtless be 
smuggled and undervalued if the duties were but 50 per cent, of the 
present rates. I passed an invoice of diamonds recently which the im¬ 
porter advanced 75 per cent, on entry, fearing the imposition of a pen¬ 
alty; the intent of the shipper was to defraud the revenue upon an ar¬ 
ticle paying the very lowest tariff rate, 30 per cent. If even the present 
provisions of the law and regulations were everywhere intelligently 
executed the full duties would be closely collected. Our system of 
changing important officials, such as appraising officers frequently, is 
also a great factor in failure to collect full duties. 

23. W ould presume it had been in proportion to the volume of business 
done at the other ports. The matter for wonder is that the duties have 
been so well collected when it is considered that two-thirds of our im¬ 
porters and their friends abroad consider any and all means to evade 
payment of the full duties as required by law legitimate and their 
bounden duty. 

24. I am unable to answer. 

It is possible that a longer experience in the office will change some 
of the foregoing views; it is even probable that they are valueless, but 
“ what is writ is writ, would it were worthier.” 

I am, dear sir, ever and truly, yours, 

THOMAS BECK. 


Ko. 228. 

DANIEL Z. YOST—Appointed Assistant Appraiser June 26, 1885. 

Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

AppraiserOffice, September 18, 1885. 

Sir: In compliance with your circular requesting information, I sub¬ 
mit the following answers to the questions contained therein: 

1. There is no evidence at this port but that the duties have been 
properly levied. There is plenty of “hearsay” evidence that classifi¬ 
cations have been improperly made, but no positive proof. 



840 KEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


2. There is no satisfactory evidence but that on articles which the 
law says shall pay purely specific rates, without reference to values, has 
not been paid; on the contrary I think the law has been complied with 
on articles bearing “specific” rates. 

3. By actual measurement, weighing and counting of threads. 

4. Have not been able to obtain proof, but am satisfied that collusion 
has existed between deputy collectors and those entering goods to have 
only certain packages sent to appraisers. 

5. On the wharves, weighing and measuring has grown into an abuse 
here at this port, and it is notorious that most of the men are incompe¬ 
tent and loose in their methods. 

6. I think differences will arise under most any law, and the present 
one is good, if interpreted properly and enforced. As to remainder of 
questions 6 and 7, the eastern appraisers are no doubt familiar with 
and can furnish you the information. 

9. There is no conclusive proof that the appraiser has reported to the 
collector false dutiable values. These are matters hard to locate and 
difficult to prove. 

10. On some articles differences arise at times about the classification, 
yet w^e generally give the Government the benefit of the doubt. As to 
determining dutiable values, no differences arise on standard articles 
imported where the market values vary but little. On goods, however, 
that might be termed “new styles” every year, of course it is difficult 
to get at the exact market values. 

11. 1 think the “liquidating department” of the custom-house ought 
to be able to furnish you a safe estimate as to the percentage of under¬ 
valuations by the appraisers for any one year or series of years. 

12. The examiner is primarily the responsible party for a false return 
to the collector, as he sees the goods, whereas the appraiser only signs 
his name to the return. 

Two thousand dollars a year is the salary paid all examiners here, 
except one, who receives $1,600 a year. The appraiser here does not 
examine goods, but I think the Department would be much better served 
if instructions were given to that effect, so he could sign returns intel¬ 
ligently and assist in despatching business, causing fewer complaints 
from merchants that they cannot get their goods from appraiser’s store. 
He lias ample time to perform these duties. 

13. Not to my knowledge. 

14. Undervaluation has been common here, and that with the knowl¬ 
edge of every official through whose hands the invoices have passed. 
Every officer should be held responsible both in appraisers and custom¬ 
house. 

15. No reason, and I think it will occur in the future as in the past, 
and our only safeguard is selecting honest men. 

16. Without doubt a change from ad valorem to specific rates will be 
the best, and should be done on all articles that are practicable. On 
textile fabrics of course it would preclude many of the cheaper goods, 
yet I think it should be tried, and only changed when we find it will 
not work. 

17. In answer to this I will say that the natural result would be to 
make the appraisers less watchful and careful than if working under 
the “moiety law.” 

18. It would l>e practicable, and I think would correct most of the 
abuses, such as undervaluations, big discounts, &c., which now prevail, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 841 

it consular agents would take the time and trouble and verify the in¬ 
voices. They ought to be familiar with the market values; if not, can 
easily post themselves by sending for manufacturers, price-lists. 

19. By conferring greater power on the executive or the j udicial powers 
in ascertainment of the dutiable value, I thiuk the importer would be 
better satisfied, and consider that the appraiser had not ruled arbitra¬ 
rily in his individual case. 

Ot course my limited time in this office does not permit of a wide ex¬ 
perience, but 1 give you as near as I can my views and observations, 
and will, from time to time, forward you anything I find that may be of 
advantage to you. 

I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 

DANIEL Z. YOST, 

Assistant Appraiser. 

Hon. Daniel Manning. 


No. 229. 

J. M. MORTON—Appointed Agent, Alaska, Seal Fisheries, May 15, 1877; Surveyor 

July 14, 1880. 

Custom-House, San Francisco, Cal., 

Surveyors Office , September 10, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Depart¬ 
ment’s circular letter of August 27, marked “confidential,” containing 
certain interrogatories relative to conducting the customs business at 
the various ports of the United States. 

In reply I would respectfully state that inquiries 4, 5, and 21 in said 
circular are the only ones which apparently have any application to the 
surveyor’s office at this port, and to such inquiries I would answer as 
follows: 

4. Namely, as to the probability of collusion between persons making 
entry of several packages of similar goods on one invoice, and the entry 
clerk or deputy collector to send bogus or false packages to the ap¬ 
praiser, I would state that the deputy collectors at this port seldom 
designate particular packages to be sent to the appraiser’s store. All 
packages for the appraiser are selected by inspectors discharging car¬ 
goes. It was formerly the practice at this port in making the detail 
of inspectors to discharge a cargo to appoint one inspector to select the 
appraiser’s packages. This was changed by myself three years ago 
under the impression that the system presented great opportunities for 
fraud. The present regulations governing the matter require that every 
inspector who delivers dutiable goods from a vessel shall retain one 
package in every ten as they are laden on the trucks or drays. These 
are marked “retained,” and are subsequently sent to the appraiser’s 
store by another inspector specially detailed for the purpose. 

I believe this to be the correct system for the selection of appraisers 
packages, and where it can be enforced fully I think the opportunities 
for fraud are reduced to the minimum. I have heretofore in a lengthy 
letter to the Department fully explained the above system. 

5. In answer to question number five I would say that the weighing 
and measuring at this port are performed under the supervision of two 



842 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


weighers, and that for the purposes of weighing the docks are divided 
into two districts. There are sixteen assistant weighers. In tbe de¬ 
tailing of assistant weighers for duty the system of rotation is observed. 
I think under this practice of constantly changing these officers any 
collusion or extensive frauds would be easily detected, and I have no 
reason to believe that at the present time the weighing or measuring 
on the wharves is performed otherwise than in a regular and competent 
manner. 

21. Special attention has been given by this office to the matter of 
the examination of passengers’ baggage, and competent and careful 
officers are assigned to this duty. 

I may say that, during my administration, several cases where bribes 
were offered to inspectors have been reported to the office by the officers 
to whom such offers were made, but under the checks and safeguards 
which prevail I do not consider it probable that the acceptance of money 
from passengers by inspectors is of very frequent occurrence. 

It seems to me that the present regulations governing the examination 
of passengers’ baggage are as good as can be devised. They have been 
strictly carried out at this port. All passengers are required to make 
entry of their baggage on the forms provided for the purpose. The 
baggage is subsequently examined under the direct supervision of the 
assistant to the surveyor. This officer designates the inspector to make 
the examination in each case. Any extensive frauds in this connection 
would therefore necessarily involve collusion between the surveyor’s 
outside deputy and the inspectors. I am satisfied that no such collusion 
has existed here, and 1 believe that this branch of the service at this 
port is faithfully and honestly administered. 

Very respectfully, 

J. M. MORTON, 

Surveyor. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 230. 

SAMUEL G. HILBORN—Appointed United States District Attorney, San Francisco, 

Cal., July 4, 1883. 

San Francisco, October 16, 1885. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a circular letter 
coming from your Department, calling upon me for replies to certain 
inquiries contained in said letter. I have also received a letter of a 
subsequent date calling my attention to the former one, and requesting 
an early reply. 

I have been busily engaged in the trial of some important Govern¬ 
ment cases, and my time was so occupied that it seemed impossible for 
me to attend to the matter sooner. I regret that I did not appreciate 
the importance of an earlier reply. From the fact that the sixth in¬ 
terrogatory was marked in a way to call to it my especial attention, I 
infer that you expect me to make answer to the questions therein pro¬ 
pounded. Indeed, the other interrogatories relate to matters upon 
which I have no information which would be of use to you. 

You ask if the present law needs amendment? While I think the law 
could be made clearer in some particulars, I must confess that the liti- 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 843 


gation respecting the collections of the revenue which has come under 
my observation at this port has arisen from an overzealousness on the 
part of the officers charged with the collection of the revenue. By this 
statement I mean no disrespect to them. On the other hand, it is prob¬ 
ably to their credit that they have been zealous and anxious to collect 
all the money due to the Government. 

My observation is that they are inclined to give the Government 
the benefit of every doubt, and the result has been numerous suits 
against the collector to which there has been no defence. For instance, 
under Collector Sullivan’s administration, there were large importa¬ 
tions of spirits to this port from China, which the importers claimed 
to be pure spirits, liable to a duty of $2 per gallon. The customs offi¬ 
cers, however, decided that the merchandise was medicated wines, and 
assessed upon it a duty of 50 cents per pound, under paragraph 118, 
new tariff indexed. The importers paid the duties under protest, and 
afterwards brought suit against the collector for the excess of duties so 
paid. I think there were sixteen of these suits. I was called upon to 
defend the collector, and in preparing the suits for trial I caused an 
analysis to be made of the samples of the several importations by a com¬ 
petent chemist, and he was unable to find a trace of medication in a sin¬ 
gle sample. This discovery left me without any ground for defence, 
and, on the Treasury Department being notified of the situation, the 
matters were settled and the suits dismissed. 

Another group of cases has arisen at this port from the construction 
placed by the Department upon section 7 of the tariff act of March 3, 
1883. Acting under the opinion of the Hon. Attorney-General, dated 
January 18, 1884, the Treasury Department continued to include in the 
dutiable value of merchandise imported into the country the value of 
the coverings in which said merchandise was contained when imported. 

There were numerous importations of Portland cement at this port, 
which cement was packed in barrels, and the importer was required to 
pay duty on the value of the barrel as well as upon the merchandise 
contained in it. There were also several importations of jute bags, 
which were packed in bales, which were also enclosed in coverings of 
the same materials. The value of these outside coverings was also 
included in estimating the value of the merchandise for the purpose of 
assessing the duties. This action resulted in some sixteen or seventeen 
suits against the collector to recover back the moneys paid as duties 
upon said coverings. I fought these cases at every step for more than 
a year, but before they came to trial the case of Meyers vs. Shurtliff 
was decided by the circuit court of Oregon, (see West Coast Reporter, 
vol. 6, page 449,) which covered every question involved in my cases. 
Under the authority of that case, the plaintiffs have recovered in all the 
cases of this class in our circuit court. 

L understand that the Treasury Department has acquiesced in this 
decision, and no longer collects duties upon coverings in which mer¬ 
chandise is imported into the country. If, however, there is any doubt 
as to the soundness of this decision, the next Congress should be re¬ 
quested to so amend said section 7 as to remove all doubts. 

I deem it proper also to call your attention to what seems to me to be 
an omission in the act of March 2, 1883, entitled “An act to prevent the 
importation of adulterated and spurious teas.” 

The plain intent of the law was to protect our people from imposi¬ 
tions which might be practised upon them by introducing into our 



844 REPORT OF THE SEERETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


markets teas which are deleterious to health, but also teas which are too 
weak to be of any benefit to the consumers. The law as it now stands 
prohibits the importation of teas containing exhausted leaves. Our cir¬ 
cuit court held in a case which 1 tried that in order that the merchan¬ 
dise should be excluded, it must be shown that the leaves were ex¬ 
hausted by artificial means. In that case there was no doubt but the tea 
was the natural leaf, and there was no adulteration with spurious leaves 
or with the leaves of tea which have been previously steeped or subjected 
to any artificial process by which its strength had been diminished, 
nor did it contain any substance deleterious to health. But it was a 
miserable mass of tea-leaves which had been rained upon whil e on the 
tree or had fallen on the ground and then gathered up and prepared 
for exportation to America. The merchandise was a fraud upon our peo¬ 
ple, but there seemed to be no law for its exclusion as the law now 
stands. 

I would suggest as a remedy that the law be so amended as to pro¬ 
vide a standard for the strength of teas. Let it be provided that any 
merchandise imported as tea shall contain a certain amount of extractive 
matter , and if it falls below the standard, that it shall be excluded. 

I beg also to suggest that “ soap-stocks ” (par. 790, free-list) be stricken 
from the free-list. As the law stands now, it makes it difficult to collect 
the duties on tallow. The best kind of tallow is used for the manufact¬ 
ure of toilet-soaps; and when tallow is imported for the sole purpose of 
converting it into soap, the importer insists on calling it soap-stock, 
entitled to free entry. Merchandise known as tallow should be subject 
to payment of duty irrespective of its quality and irrespective of the 
use to which it is to be put. 

I have defended the collector in two suits brought to recover back 
money paid as duties upon natural mineral water. For a time there 
was a regulation that the certificate of the owner or manager of the 
spring should be the sole evidence of the fact that the water was natural 
and not artificial water. While that regulation was in force several 
shipments of Apollinaris water were made to this port, and the im¬ 
porters were compelled to pay duties as though they were manufactured 
waters. There was no doubt about the fact of their being natural water; 
indeed, the Government appraisers certified to the fact. Two suits were 
brought to recover back the duties so paid. The complaints fully stated 
the above facts, and I demurred on the ground that the facts did not 
constitute a cause of action. This presented the legal question whether 
the regulation was reasonable , and our circuit court decided that it was 
not. I understand that the Department has acquiesced in this decision, 
and that the rule referred to has been suspended. If there is any doubt 
about the correctness of the decision of our court in that case, the law 
should be so amended as to meet the case. The other mineral-water 
suit is still pending. 

At the request of your Department, the case in which the opinion was 
rendered was sent up on writ of error, and was the occasion of setting 
aside the rule referred to. 

I defended the collector in one suit brought to recover back moneys 
paid as duties upon certain importations of sugar. The question in that 
case, however, was purely a question of fact. It was not above No. 13, 
Dutch standard, and was tested by the polariscope, and the importer 
contended that the polariscope used at the custom-house was an antiquated 
instrument and gave imperfect results. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 845 


It occurred to me at the time of the trial of that case that it would be 
well for Congress to provide that the strength of sugar should be tested 
by a polariscope of a certain manufacture. There are several different 
kinds of instruments, manufactured by different makers in different parts 
of the world, and the same sugar tested by different instruments will be 
found to vary in strength. 

In a large cargo of sugar the variation of a single degree in the reading 
of the instrument makes a great difference to the importer as well as to 
the United States. 

The adoption of an instrument of a particular make by act of Congress 
would tend to do away with some of the uncertainty which now exists 
in testing sugars for the purpose of assessing duties. It may be, how¬ 
ever, that such legislation is not practicable. 

The cases which have arisen in our courts can be classified about as 
follows: Sixteen ‘ 4 spirit cases, 7 ’ involving merely a question of fact. 
These cases are all settled and dismissed. 

About the same number of cases known as the “ cement” and “bag” 
cases, involving the question whether section 7 of the act of March 3, 
1883, (22 Statutes, 523,) not only repeals section 2907 of the Revised 
Statutes, authorizing the value of the “covering’’ to be added to the 
wholesale price of imported merchandise for the purpose of ascertain¬ 
ing its dutiable value, but positively prohibits the value of such 4 4 cover¬ 
ings ’ ’ from being estimated as a part of such dutiable value. 

The courts have decided this question. 

The “mineral-water” cases, involving the reasonableness of a regula¬ 
tion of the Treasury Department. 

The 44 tallow” or “soap-stock” cases, and certain other miscellaneous 
cases, which cannot be classified. 

I think all of the above cases are now disposed of, so far as our courts 
are concerned, excepting one of the “ mineral-water ” cases and one 
“tallow” case. These cases could also have been disposed of had the 
plaintiffs so desired. I have never heard any complaint that this class 
of cases were not promptly disposed of. 

There can be no doubt but as the business of the country expands the 
pressure upon our courts as at present constituted will render it neces¬ 
sary to create a new tribunal for the trial of cases growing out of the 
collection of the revenue. This has been the experience of other na¬ 
tions, and I see no reason why the same causes should not produce like 
results in our own country. Whether we have already arrived at that 
point when the creation of such a tribunal is necessary, I am not pre¬ 
pared to express an opinion. As I said before, I have heard no com¬ 
plaints of delay in “customs cases” coming from the people residing 
upon the Pacific coast. 

If I have omitted to touch upon any matter upon which you desire 
information, please inform me, and I will cheerfully respond. 

Very respectfully, 

S. G. HILBORR, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. 


#46 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 231. 


CHARLES BURRILL—Appointed Examiner July 26, 1875. 


Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

Appraisers Office , September 17, 1885. 

Sir: 1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a printed com¬ 
munication from you asking for information on various matters of 
interest to the customs service. In response thereto I would respect¬ 
fully state that the duties pertaining to the laboratory have so occupied 
my time as to render it impossible for me to furnish any reliable infor¬ 
mation upon the subjects presented for consideration. 

Very respectfully, 

CHARLES BURRILL, M. D., 

Special Examiner of Drugs. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 
Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 232. 

ANDREW HOLLYWOOD—Appointed Laborer September 18, 1875; Sampler Decem¬ 
ber 1, 1877; Examiner March 21, 1885. 

i 

Port of San Francisco, Cal., 

Appraiser’s Office , September 24,1885. 

Sir: In reply to your circular of the 9th instant, I respectfully report 
as follows, to wit: 

1. I know of no evidence in regard to this question. 

2. There is none to my knowledge. 

3. Textile fabrics are verified by counting the pieces, by actual meas¬ 
urement, weight, and samples taken, which are sent each month to 
general appraiser. 

4. There is no evidence that I know of at this port, but such collusion 
is possible with a dishonest deputy collector. 

5. There is no false weighing on the wharves here that I know of, 
but I have thought there was not sufficient rice, and such articles, 
weighed. 

6. I think the present law sufficient, if strictly enforced. (2.) I do not 
know the number of suits pending at said ports. (3.) I do not know. 
(4.) It is my impression that a plan could be devised by the parties 
named that would save a great deal of litigation, and be more expedi¬ 
ent. (5.) Cannot suggest intelligently anything to answer the question, 
or the sixth. 

7. I have no knowledge of transactions in New York. 

8. Same answer as to seventh question. 

9. I have no knowledge of any kind that the appraisers ever made 
a false return. There is the sample of textile fabrics, which are sent to 
general appraiser, and samples on file in appraiser’s office. 

10. At this port there has been some confusion in regard to so-callea 
“soap stock”—grease and tallow. (2.) The Government has just lost d 
suit on the above articles. (3.) Yes, but not clear enough, and it is open 
to annoying constructions. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 847 


11. There might be an average made of undervaluations from invoices, 
for it would be impossible to identify the articles. 

12. While the appraiser is responsible to the collector, he nevertheless 
forms his judgment from reports of assistant appraisers and examiners. 
In most cases he does not see the articles, especially those examined 
at wharves. (2.) The salary of the appraiser is $3,600 per annum; assist¬ 
ant appraiser, $2,500, and examiners, $2,000 and $1,600, respectively. 

13. I have no knowledge of any such offense. 

14. I don’t think there has been any dishonesty in appraisement at 
this port; but I do think there has been considerable false valuation 
by importers of Japanese merchandise. 

15. The business at this port can be correctly attended to, if the offi¬ 
cers are honest and capable. 

16. I most assuredly answer yes. Specific rates, I am satisfied, could 
be applied to all textile fabrics. 

17. I don’t think that the “moiety law” affected the returning of in¬ 
voices in auy manner. 

18. I do not think it practicable. (2.) Consuls could possibly ascer¬ 
tain the true values at all the small foreign ports. (3.) It is possible and 
probable that they would complain. (4.) Consuls’ fees are $2.50 on each 
invoice. 

19. 1 think that it would be very proper for the Treasury Department 
to have more power, and if “merchant appraisements” were entirely 
abolished it would be a benefit to the service. 

20. In regard to wool I have no means at my command to reply to 
your request; have only been examiner three months; have no statistics 
that I could rely upon to furnish you. 

21. Where such practices prevail I would suggest that at a port like 
New York, where foreign steamers arrive, there be built a warehouse 
expressly for baggage. Night and day there should be two examiners 
(or more if necessary) stationed, whose duty it would be to examine 
baggage and pass upon them forthwith. 

22. Opium, I think, is rated so high that it becomes a great induce¬ 
ment to many to smuggle, and the repeal of the “moiety law” had a 
tendency to lessen seizures. 

23. Have no knowledge of the transactions at New York or the At¬ 
lantic ports. 

24. I do not know. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Yours, obediently, 

ANDREW HOLLYWOOD, 

Examiner of Merchandise. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. G. 


848 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


No. 233. 

T. F. JEROME—Appointed Deputy Inspector January 14, 1869; Examiner October 

1, 1873. 

San Francisco, Cal., 

October 8, 1885. 

Sir: I answer the questions propounded by you in your circular of 
September 27 as follows, to wit: 

1. There is no evidence but that the whole duties have been levied and 
collected according to law. The rates of duty and dutiable values 
have been closely scrutinized and watched in this department. 

2. No evidence exists but that the full amount of duties have been 
collected on goods paying specific duties. 

3. Textile fabrics are measured if doubt exists, and actual meterage 
correctly ascertained. 

4. No evidence of any collusion by the parties refereed to. 

5. The weighing and measuring on the wharves has been competent 
and accurate in my district. 

6. (1) Yes. Can’t answer as to suits in New York, or other ports east. 
The judicial system is sufficient if worked with efficiency and dispatch. 

7. Don’t know about collection of duties in New York. 

8. None that I am aware of. 

9. No evidence that the appraisers ever reported to the collector false 
dutiable values. 

10. There has been doubt, but no confusion. With the law and aid 
of Treasury decisions we arrive at conclusions satisfactory to both col¬ 
lector, naval officer, and liquidating departments. 

11. I think not. 

12. The examiner is. At this port he classifies and returns invoices 
the same as assistant appraiser. Such 1 understand is not the practice 
at New York and other ports east. The appraisers at this port give per¬ 
sonal attention to damage allowance and examination of merchandise 
on the wharves, whenever called upon to see that the Government is 
fully protected. 

13. Don’t know of any. 

14. I know of no false reports or corruption fund in any department 
of the service at this port. 

15. 1 know of no false valuations or corruption by bribery. 

16. Yes; cement, bath and firebrick, jute, bales of bags, and all 
goods of a similar nature should pay specific duties; most all of textile 
fabrics, linens, cottons, burlaps, hosiery, should be included in specific 
duty. If yardage is more in case than specified on invoice it would be 
a sure means of detection. Embroideries on silk or other goods where 
the embroidery is of chief value, perhaps ad valorem duty would be the 
best. The nearer we approach or adopt specific duties it would be, in 
my opinion, to the advantage of the Government. It would further re¬ 
move the incentive to importers to undervalue invoices. 

17. I think not. 

18. A good plan, but think it impracticable. 

19. The judicial power should be increased provided a prompt and 
quick decision could be had. The long time to get a decision is objec¬ 
tionable. 

20. The duty on wool is specific, act March 3, 1883. Only a small 
amount of wool from foreign ports comes to this port for consumption. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 849 


21. We are informed by travelers that such is the practice in New 
York, but is not practiced here, employing sharp detectives. 

21. Would break up the practice. 

22. Yes. Opium pays $10 per pound duty. If less, the incentive to 
smuggle would be lessened. A wealthy and powerful combination of 
smugglers and dishonest shippers cause us a great deal of trouble at 
this port. 

23. Don’t know. 

24. Don’t know of any false reports to collectors of dutiable values. 
If so, should be punished. 

Respectfully, 


Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington , D. C. 


T. F. JEROME, 

Examiner. 


No. 234. 


N. B. HOYT—Appointed Examiner March 1, 1872; Clerk April 11, 1872; Examiner 

September 18, 1875. 

Port of San Francisco, Cal., 
Appraiser's Office , October 7, 1885. 

Sir : Herewith I submit for your consideration answers to inquiries 
contained in Department letter dated September 9, 1885. 


Respectfully, 


N. B. HOYT, 

Examiner. 


1. I know of no positive evidence that the full rate of duty has not 
been collected, but when the rate of duty depends on an ad valorem 
tariff the temptation to importers to undervalue their invoices is so 
strong that the utmost vigilance of the examiners and appraisers is at 
times unable to counteract or prevent fraud in the revenue owing to 
their inability to obtain satisfactory proof of market values in foreign 
ports. 

2. I know of no evidence that the full duties on articles paying spe¬ 
cific duties have not been faithfully collected. 

3. The invoice measurements of textile fabrics are verified sometimes 
by the measurement of the fabrics, the checking by numbers of the 
quantities, and also (especially in silk fabrics) by weight as well as by 
measurement. 

4. I know of no evidence of collusion of the kind mentioned. 

5. As my business is confined entirely within the appraiser’s building, 
I have no opportunity for detecting any false, incompetent, or inade¬ 
quate weighing or measuring on the wharves should any exist. 

6. In regard to this inquiry I would state that in my opinion many 
questions in respect to rates of duty might be decided by the Treasury 
Department in such a manner that there need be no appeal to the 
courts, were there competent men in the Department who thoroughly 
understood the workings of the tariff* laws, and who would not be 
swayed by local interests, or the importunities of manufacturers or irn- 

54 A 



850 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUYY. 

porters, as I am inclined to think has been the case heretofore. In 
regard to how many collectors’ suits are now pending in Eastern ports, 
and of the questions at issue, I must plead ignorance, as I am not 
familiar with the manner in which business is conducted at the ports 
mentioned in your inquiry. I have no doubt if able and efficient law 
officers of the Government were appointed to faithfully carry out the 
laws now enacted that the present judicial system is sufficient, and that 
no new tribunal is necessary. 

7. I know nothing of a positive character in regard to any class of 
articles on which the full amount of duties has not been collected in 
New York. 

I have heard dry-goods importers in this city complain that they could 
not import merchandise into this port and compete with New York mer¬ 
chants, and that they could buy foreign dress goods and silks in that 
■city for less than it would cost to import them directly into this port. 
This has been quite a common complaint of our importers, and I pre¬ 
sume there must have been some foundation for their grievance, caused, 
presumably, by the undervaluation of invoices at the port of New 
York. Whether it can be controverted I am unable to say. 

8. I am unable to state how the failure, if any, has come about. 

9. In my opinion no false dutiable values have knowingly been re¬ 
ported to the collector by the appraisers of this district. 

10. I think the statutes fully define the duties of the appraising offi¬ 
cers, as well as the standard to be applied to the examination of mer¬ 
chandise. It is a difficult matter to always arrive at the proper valua¬ 
tion of many kinds of merchandise, especially from Chinese and other 
Asiatic ports, owing to the failure of the consuls to transmit prices cur¬ 
rent to guide and assist the appraisers in ascertaining dutiable values. 
Since the enactment of the tariff law of March 3, 1883, the appraisers 
have had considerable difficulty in determining what constitutes dutia¬ 
ble charges, and there is constant conflict between merchants and ap¬ 
praisers as to the proper interpretation of section 7 of that act. 

11. A reply to this inquiry is included in that to No. 9. 

12. In regard to this inquiry, I would state that, in my opinion, the 
appraiser is primarily responsible for the manner in which the business 
•of the office is conducted, as all invoices are submitted to him, after ex¬ 
amination by the assistant appraisers or examiners, for his inspection 
and approval (at least it is so at this port) before transmitting the same 
to collector. The salary of each appraiser is $3,625 per annum. 

The appraiser must officially certify to all invoices passed upon by 
the assistant appraisers and examiners, but it is impossible for him to 
personally attend to the examination of all merchandise, and conse¬ 
quently he has to trust in a great measure to the honesty of his subor¬ 
dinates ; but he has other duties to perform in attending to the interests 
of the Government, in all reappraisements, merchant appraisements, 
<&c,, on appeal that come before him, and to a person who takes an in¬ 
terest and a pride in his office and in seeing the work faithfully per¬ 
formed, his position is no sinecure. 

13. I know of no evidence of collusion on the part of consuls with 
foreign merchants, in the presentation to appraisers of false foreign 
values, but in my opinion the consuls do not, personally, take cogni¬ 
sance of the values as expressed on the invoices presented to them for 
verification. Especially is this the case in my department, which is 
almost exclusively devoted to the examination of Chinese and Japanese 
•merchandise. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 851 


14. I am not aware that false values have been systematically re¬ 
ported to collectors, or that the tariff laws have not been faithfully ex¬ 
ecuted at this port or elsewhere. There has been an occasional com¬ 
plaint at this port, but not frequent, and such as have been made have 
always been duly and promptly investigated. The full amount of duty, 
as far as 1 know, has been collected, and I know of no dishonesty or 
guilty knowledge on the part of Government officials, nor do I know 
that money has been paid to same to obtain false reports of dutiable 
values, or that any corruption fund has been raised for that purpose. 

15. In regard to this inquiry, I will simply state that if false valua¬ 
tions have existed in the past, they will undoubtedly continue in the 
future, and that bribery, venality, and corrupt influences will be 
brought to bear just so long as we have a high protective tariff in the 
form of ad valorem duties; and despite of all the vigilance that the most 
honest, faithful officers can exert, the dishonest importers will attempt 
to defraud the revenue. 

16. I believe that a, change from ad valorem to specific rates would 
tend, in a great measure, to diminish a tendency to bribery, even though 
the present amount of duty is levied, as there would be less opportunity 
for dishonesty on the part of the importer. I do not think it would be 
practicable to apply specific rates on all textile fabrics, especially light 
and expensive goods, embroideries, &c. 

17. As stated in reply to inquiry No. 9, no false reports have been 
made by the appraisers to the collector, as far as known by me. 

18. In regard to this inquiry, I would respectfully state, that in my 
opinion, it would be impracticable for consuls to personally examine all 
articles exported from the foreign ports mentioned, and others, but 
entirely practicable for them to examine and verify the market values 
of nearly all the leading articles of export, especially textile fabrics, 
and transmit samples of same to collectors or appraisers at the ports 
of destination of said exports. Where samples of merchandise cannot 
be transmitted, it should be the duty of the consuls to furnish the ap¬ 
praisers with correct information of market values, either by prices 
current or by communications, that the appraisers may honestly arrive 
at the correctness of values in their appraisement of merchandise. 
From the ports of China and Japan, whence large quantities of as¬ 
sorted merchandise are exported to this country, we have been utterly 
unable to obtain any reliable data of market values, except as regards 
goods on which no duties or specific rates are levied. Take, for in¬ 
stance, the article known as peanut oil, paying an ad valorem duty and 
largely imported into this port by Chinese and other merchants, we 
can get no information of the Hong-Kong value except through the 
private advices of some reliable importer or merchant. The same re¬ 
marks apply to silks and other textile fabrics; also other merchandise 
paying ad valorem duties. It should be part of the duty of consuls in 
those countries to furnish the officers of customs with price quotations 
of all leading articles of export. I am not prepared to say at what 
consular districts the true invoiced values of every shipment can be 
ascertained. The consular fee in England is, I believe, 12s. 6d., no 
matter how great or little the value of the merchandise. 

19. In my opinion the Secretary of the Treasury ought to have power 
to consider evidence produced by importers in regard to the correctness 
of values as expressed in their invoices, and to revise the report of the 
appraisers if, in his judgment, such revision is advisable. 


852 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


20. In regard to the article of wool, I believe there should be no com¬ 
pound duty, but simply a specific rate, which would prevent any com¬ 
plication that would naturally arise from a compound or strictly ad 
valorem duty, and would be more satisfactory to both Government and 
importer., 1 have had no practical experience in the examination of 
wool during my term of office, and cannot intelligently discuss the 
matter. 

21. I have been informed that at one time it was customary to fee 
the inspectors of baggage at the port of New York in order to hasten 
or facilitate the examination of luggage, but I know nothing of the 
matter except from hearsay. 

22. I believe that the present tariff on some classes of merchandise, 
notably prepared opium, is so high that great inducements are held out 
to smugglers at Pacific ports, but it is doubtful in my mind whether 
such practices would not be continued even were the rates of duty less 
than at present. 

23. I am not conversant with the workings of the New York or other 
Atlantic offices, and cannot answer this inquiry. 

24. I know of no false returns or reports to collectors of dutiable 
values in the past. 

Respectfully submitted. 

N. B. HOYT, 

Examiner. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 235. 


JOHN A. SAMPSON—Appointed Temporary Inspector April 10, 1865; Inspector De¬ 
cember 1, 1869; Clerk September 18, 1875; Assistant Cashier February 6, 1876; and 
Examiner November 6, 1883. 


Port of San Francisco, Cal., 
Appraiser’s Office , September 29, 1885. 

Sir : I beg leave to submit the following answers to the questions 
propounded in your circular letter of September 9 instant: 

1. I know of none. 

2. None that I know of. 

3. By measuring, weighing, and samples taken. 

4. In quite a varied experience as an inspector and as an examiner 
I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe that there 
was auy collusion between the person making entry and entry clerk or 
department collector to send to the appraiser’s store for examination 
bogus or false packages as a fair example of one in every ten. 

5. So far as my experience goes I have found the weighers at this 
port honest, competent, and faithful in the discharge of their official 
duties. 

6. I have no knowledge of the number of suits now pending in Bos¬ 
ton, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore in respect to rates of duty 
and differences between importers and collectors growing out of de¬ 
cisions by the latter and the Treasury. I think the present judicial 
system sufficient. 



REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 853 


7, 8, 9. 1 have no personal knowledge of the affairs of the New York 
custom-house. 

10. There is quite often a difference of opinion in the appraiser’s de¬ 
partment as to what constitutes the chief value of articles composed of 
several constituents. 

11. I think not. 

12. I think all should share the responsibility. The deputy appraiser 
and examiner are bound to get all information possible to assist them 
in returning correct values, but it frequently happens that the chief 
appraiser is in possession of facts that the deputy appraiser or exam¬ 
iner are unable to obtain. 

13. I know of none. 

14. I think not so far as the Treasury is concerned; as to appraisers, 
yes. 

15. 1 know of nothing. 

16. There is a large number of articles that now pay ad valorem duty 
that should pay specific duty. Specific rates could not be applied to all 
textile fabrics. 

17. 1 think the repeal in 1874 of the moiety law has encouraged smug¬ 
gling and undervaluation. 

18. (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) $2.50. 

19. I know of no better plan than that already existing. 

21. I know of no way of preventing bribery other than by having 
honest officials. 

22. Yes. 

23. I have no knowledge of that. 

24. I do not know. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN A. SAMPSON, 

Examiner . 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


PORT CF SAVANNAH. 


No. 236. 

T. F. JOHNSON—Appointed Collector June 29, 1880, and January 10, 1881. 

Custom-House, Savannah, Ga., 

Collector’s Office, August 29, 1885. 

Sir : Respectfully acknowledging the receipt of your confidential cir¬ 
cular of August 27, I Lave the honor to submit the following auswers 
to your questions, which I regret are not as full as I would like, for, 
owing to the character of our importations, I have not the practical ex¬ 
perience, or opportunity of observation, which would justify more ex¬ 
tended replies. 

1. There is no such evidence at this port. 

2. No. 

3. We have no importations of textile fabrics. 


/ 




854 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


4. None. 

5. None. • 

6. Have had no collectors’ suits at this port on which to base a judg¬ 
ment. 

7. Have no knowledge of such cases. 

8. See No. 7. 

9. The acting appraiser makes report of proper dutiable values. 

10. No confusion or doubt on such goods as we receive. 

11. No undervaluation by the acting appraiser. 

12. Have no false returns, and only an acting appraiser. 

13. None to my knowledge. 

14. No false values reported here. 

15. See No. 14. 

16. Specific duties would remove all cause for undervaluation by 
importers. Have no experience with textile fabrics. 

17. Have no false reports at this port. 

18. Have not sufficient knowledge of the matter to answer intelligently. 

19. I think it unnecessary. 

20. Have no experience in woolen goods, having no importations. 

21. Such practice does not prevail at this port. 

22. There has been some smuggling of liquors and cigars, the duties 
being so high that evasions of the law are attempted on a small scale— 
sometimes successfully. The expense of a sufficient preventive force 
would be greater than the loss sustained by the Government. 

23. The revenue laws have been fairly enforced at this port. 

24. Have no false reports at this port. 

Very respectfully, 


T. F. JOHNSON, 


Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C.: 


PORT OF SUSPENSION BRIDGE. 


No. 237. 

BENJAMIN FLAGLER—Appointed Deputy and Clerk December 1, 1873; Collector 

February 21, 1882. 

Custom-House, Collector’s Office, 

Suspension Bridge , N. 3T., September 25, 1885. 
Sir: Referring to Department’s circular letter of 27th ultimo, I have 
to report : 

1. I have no evidence that duties have not been collected as the law 
prescribed. 

2. There is no such evidence. 

3. At this port, where there are very few importations of textile 
fabrics, the invoiced measurements are verified by actual measurements 
of certain pieces. 

4. None. 

5. None. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 855 


6 . No suits have been brought against the collector of this district 
in respect to rates of duty. 

7. I know of none. 

8 . 1 have no knowledge. 

9. There is no appraiser at this port. 

13. None. 

14. I have no knowledge of anything of this kind. 

15. I have no knowledge of false values. 

16. I do not see how a change from ad valorem to specific duties can 
benefit the revenue or help diminish a tendency to bribery. If an 
officer is corrupt he can as well return false quantities as false values. 
Perhaps a return of false quantities may be more easily detected. 
There are some articles on which specific duties may fairly be levied— 
articles which do not change materially in value—but on the great ma¬ 
jority of articles imported, if a fair duty is to be collected, it cannot be 
obtained by specific rates. For the same reason it seems to me impos¬ 
sible or impracticable to apply specific rates to textile fabrics. The 
variety of these goods, the wide range of values, the endless number of 
qualities and kinds, make it impossible to secure any fair average of 
the duties to be collected on such goods by specific rates. An ad valo¬ 
rem duty in m 3 7 opinion is the only perfectly fair duty. Of course there 
are many ways in which the revenue may be defrauded by dishonest 
persons, but such avenues are open when duties are to be levied either 
specific or ad valorem. Under our present tariff we have all sorts of 
classifications to determine rates of duty, and the consequence is all 
sorts of opinions. In no way can a tariff be framed to bear equally on 
all the articles entering into the manufactured goods of the country as 
easily as by an ad valorem tariff. 

17. I do not know. 

18. In my opinon it would not be practicable for consular officers in 
the districts named to personally examine articles shipped without great 
delay to shipments. To make such examinations of any value would 
require an amount of technical knowledge on the part of consular offi¬ 
cers they are not likely to possess. So far as I know it is not the cus¬ 
tom of any consular officers, no matter how small their districts, to so 
verify the correctness of invoices. The most that can be expected of 
consular officers is that they keep themselves conversant with values 
of merchandise shipped from their respective districts, and to keep 
customs officers posted relative thereto. On this frontier my experi¬ 
ence is that consuls are no protection to the revenue. This office has 
never to my knowledge received any information from such officers 
relative to values of merchandise. The custom of such officers in Canada 
is to certify any invoice presented without question. The declarations 
are usually made by some one holding power of attorney from the ship¬ 
pers —generally the agents of the railways at the different stations. I 
have one now in mind. There have been issued at St. Thomas some 
900 invoices this year, and it is safe to say that the declarations on 875 
of them have been signed by the agent of the M. C. Railway at that 
place. In many instances these agents have had the certificates signed 
in blauk by the consuls, and they till them up as occasion requires. 
Therefore these certificates are not in any way depended on as reliable. 
If these consular officers ever obtain any information relative to duti¬ 
able values, it does not reach this office, and customs officers are 
obliged to depend entirely upon other avenues of information for such 
knowledge. 


856 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


I have no knowledge of fees exacted by consuls in England. 

19. In my opinion it would be both safe and useful. 

20. Previous to the act of March 3. 1883, the duty on wool was as 
follows: 

Class 1.— Clothing ivools: Valued at 32 cents or less per pound, 10 
cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; over 32 cents per pound. 

12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem; if imported unwashed, 

If imported washed, double the above rates ; if imported scoured, three 
times the above rates. 

Class 2.— Combing wools: Valued at 32 cents or less per pound, 10 
cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; over 32 cents per pound, 

12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem, washed or unwashed. 

If imported scoured, three times the above rates. 

Class 3.— Carpet wools: Valued at 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents 
per pound; over 12 cents per pound, 6 cents per pound, if imported 
unwashed or washed. If imported scoured, three times the above rates. ) 

The act of March 3, 1883, which is now in force, made the duties on 
wool as follows: 

Class 1.— Clothing wools: Valued at 30 cents or less per pound, 10 « 

cents per pound; valued at over 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per 
pound, if imported unwashed. If imported washed, double the above 
rates; if imported scoured, three times the above rates. 

Class 2.— Combing wools: Valued at 30 cents or less per pound, 10 
cents per pound, over 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound imported 
unwashed or washed. If imported scoured, three times the above rates. 

Class 3.— Carpet wools: Valued at 12 cents or less per pound, 2£ 
cents per pound; over 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound imported 
unwashed or washed. If imported scoured, three times above rates. 

Therefore, it will be seen that the existing rate of duty on wool is not 
a combination of ad valorem and specific rates, but a specific duty, the 
rate depending on the value of the wool in the last harbor place whence 
imported into the United States excluding charges in such port. 

The working of these rates on this frontier has the effect to exclude 
all clothing wools from Canada, the duty being prohibitory. Washed 
Canada combing-fleece or pulled wools are worth to day from 18 to 
20 cents per pound, and pay 10 cents per pound duty, say 50 per cent. 
Unwashed wools of the same class, worth 10 cents per pound, pay 
10 cents per pound duty, 100 per cent. Pickings, same class, that 
are worth 7 to 8 cents per pound, pay 10 cents per pound duty, 125 per 
cent. Unwashed combing-wools (class 2) are shut out of the United 
States because of the high duty. Canada pickings that could be used 
by carpet manufacturers under a reasonable tariff are shut out, while 
soft East India wools, that are worth 20 to 22 cents, come in as carpet 
wools at 5 cents per pound duty, and are used in the manufacture of 
blankets, low flannels, stockings, yarns, and rough goods for men’s wear. 

Down combing wools, washed, pay 10 cents per pound duty, while 
the same wools, clothing, pay 20 cents per pound duty. 

Take a large flock of downs. The well-grown best staple fleeces pay 
10 cents per pound duty. The inferior, tender staple fleeces are calssed 
as clothing wool, and pay 20 cents duty. 

Greasy Australian wools, costing 20 cents to 24 cents per pound, 
shrinking in scouring 50 per cent., pay 10 cents per pound duty. Greasy 
Cape wool, costing from 12 cents to 14 cents per pound, shrinking 05 per 
cent, to 70 per cent, in scouring, pays the same duty—10 cents per 
pound. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 857 


The user of best Australian will pay 40 per cent, to 50 per cent duty, 
while the hat or felt manufacturer will pay 70 per cent, to 80 per cent, 
duty on Cape wool. 

The present duty on washed and scoured wools prohibits their impor¬ 
tation, and the United States manufacturers are not able to enter for¬ 
eign markets only for unwashed wools. 

The rates on carpet wools are so much less that great efforts have 
been made to secure the classification of other wools in this class, and 
I am informed that at the port of Philadelphia mohair has been imported 
and paid duty as class 3. 

Wools in this class, costing 12 cents per pound, pay cents per pound 
duty, about 20 per cent.; costing 13 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound, 

. about 39 per cent. 

The working of such a tariff cannot be satisfactory or fair, and must 
result in frauds on the revenue. But so long as the present duties are 
f maintained on textile fabrics, into the manufactures of which wool enters 
to more or less an extent, I suppose some tariff on wool, based on clas¬ 
sification and value, will be continued. 

Therefore I add to what I have said under 16, the only fair duty is 
ad valorem, without regard to classification or conditions, and such a 
duty will bear more equally on all, and be the least liable to fraud. 

21. I know nothing of these matters. 

22. I cannot say. 

23. I do not know. 

24. All violations of law such as indicated have always been promptly 
reported to the proper officers for prosecution. 

Very respectfully, 

♦ BENJAMIN FLAGLER, 

Collector. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


No. 238. 

T. B. SANDERS—Appointed Deputy Commissioner of Navigation June 29, 1865. 

Treasury Department, Bureau of Navigation, 

Washington , D. C., September 7, 1885. 

Sir : The following memoranda, relating to the interrogatories in your 
circular upon customs matters, are merely suggestions, made immedi¬ 
ately, without opportunity to obtain the data necessary to more ex¬ 
tended replies, and are only intended to be auxiliary to the treatises 
which will doubtless be received from experts and specialists in such 
matters. The replies are numbered to correspond w ith the questions 
in the circular. 

1. Except in cases of smuggling or fraud, and of doubt as to the 
meaning of the law, the proper rates of duty have generally been col¬ 
lected. 





858 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


2. I do not know of any satisfactory evidence that specific rates of 
duties have not been fully collected, except in particular cases of smug¬ 
gling, or where the rate depends upon the value ascertained by the ap¬ 
praiser, as in the case of wool. 

3. This question should be answered by the appraisers, it being gov¬ 
erned by the regulations made and provided for their observance. 

4. I do not know of any evidence of collusion generally between 
officers and importers. I understand that there have been, such viola¬ 
tions of law. As an example, I cite the case of Deputy Collector Wil¬ 
liams, at New York, some years ago, a record of which is probably in 
the appointment room or the special agents’ division. 

5. The cases on the files of the special agents’ division, the “Aniline 
dye” cases at Boston, &c., will furnish evidence as to false or incom¬ 
petent or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves in par¬ 
ticular instances. 

6. As to the number of customs suits now pending at the various 
ports, the proper United States district attorneys and the Solicitor of 
the Treasury should inform you. It has been suggested that such cases 
could be brought before the Court of Claims. A full report upon the 
matter was made to Congress by the Department, and printed. Some 
action should betaken to relieve the dockets of the circuit courts of the 
United States of such suits by securing more speedy trials. The suits 
at New York cover most of the points at issue, and an additional judge 
there would probably be sufficient for their trial. If his decision on 
the point of law involved could be made conclusive on appeal from the 
decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, the final settlement of the 
cases would be expedited. An established precedent at New York in 
one case of a class would suffice fot all cases of that class arising in the 
whole country. 

Thousands of appeals are filed and suits brought covering but one 
question, on the decision of which action could be taken by the Secre¬ 
tary as regards the other cases without further litigation. An instance 
in point is the class known as the “Charges cases.” A great number of 
appeals have been made as to charges covering relatively but few points. 
The United States district attorney at New York could easily elaborate 
a bill to effect the desired object. For an example he might refer to the 
constitution of the United States courts of the District of Columbia. 

The number of doubtful questions for the decision of the courts is 
comparatively small, and an energetic district attorney and judge could 
soon clear the docket, if they could be brought to overcome the appa¬ 
rent indisposition of officials to touch such cases. 

The voluminous reports of the recent Tariff Commission, and the 
debates thereon in Congress, throw light upon the question whether 
the existing tariff, (March 3,1883,) which largely follows the preceding 
tariff, needs amendment. A list of suggested amendments, prepared 
in the customs division, was sent to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury some time ago. This list might be of use in now considering 
the subject. 

A special appropriation is required in order to the payment of inter¬ 
est as a part of the damages in these cases, or general authority could 
be given by Congress to pay it from “any other moneys not otherwise 
appropriated.” It was the former practice to pay it under existing 
legislation. The question as to interest would be a small issue, if cases 
could be tried promptly. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 859 


7. The special agents should he able to give information upon the 
question whether full duties have been collected. It is claimed that, 
owing to the difficulty in obtaining proof of foreign value, full duties 
have not, in particular cases, been levied on silks, velvets, wool, and 
other classes of articles subject to duty at ad valorem rates, or at specific 
rates, where such rates depend on the value. The evidence of failure is 
not generally of a character to be controverted successfully, for the reason 
that the foreign cost or value cannot w r ell be ascertained except by the 
manufacturer or producer of the article. 

A high duty is levied at an ad valorem rate. The particular class, or 
pattern, or quality of the article may be manufactured for the American 
market exclusively, by one person or firm abroad only; no sales may 
be made to any person before the importation of the goods, and they 
may be consigned to an agent here. In such cases there can be no abso¬ 
lute knowledge of the cost or value, except such as may be derived from 
the owner. 

The appraiser may be of one opinion, the special agents of another, 
and the general appraiser of a third, and all be entirely honest, and all 
wrong. Market values undergo constant changes ; are not the same in 
different countries, and are difficult to discover in the case of goods not 
offered in “market on vert. 7 7 

8. I have never heard of any evidence showing a guilty knowledge of 
the failure above mentioned, or conspiracy to promote it, among the 
higher class of Treasury or custom-house officials generally. But there 
have been collusion and fraud, as the records of the courts of the special 
agents 7 division and of the appointment division will show 7 . 

The alleged failure, alluded to above, has not come from any action 
or non-action on the part of Treasury officials, so far as known to me. 
Any interference by a Treasury official w ith the valuation of goods, on 
appraisement, or with the action of the collector in assessing duties in 
in the first instance, w ould necessarily be open and patent to all con¬ 
cerned. Such wrongful interference w ould be exceedingly difficult and 
dangerous. Treasury officials are under a heavy fire of criticism from 
experts, lawyers, and special agents, so far as their acts in regard to 
matters pertaining to customs and navigation are concerned. I believe 
it to be very unusual for a Department official to act from any corrupt 
motive. For instance, having been connected with tens of thousands 
of cases in the office of the Secretary during the last tw r enty years, I 
have never been offered, directly or indirectly, anything like a bribe, 
except in one instance, and that w as indirectly and guardedly by letter 
from a man on the Pacific coast, with whom I w as not acquainted. I 
presume the experience of others has been about the same. 

9. This question, I think, the special agents and customs officers can 
best answer, as I have no particular information in regard to it. 

10. It is my understanding that some doubt exists in the appraiser’s 
department as to the proper application of section 7 of the tariff act of 
1883, relating to duties or charges in the case of imported goods. The 
place and time of the valuation of goods for appraisement purposes are 
understood by appraisers, but the standard to be applied as regards 
charges does not seem to be so w ell known. A few authoritative de¬ 
cisions by the courts upon the subject of charges would remove a great 
part of the difficulties encountered in regard to the matter. 

11. It would be almost impracticable to make a safe average estimate 
of the percentage of undervaluations for any year or series of years, or 



860 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


to identify all the articles undervalued. In certain cases the invoices 
could be identified. The estimates I have heard I believe to be mere 
guess-work. 

12. The finding of the examiners and deputy appraisers, as I under¬ 
stand, usually forms the basis for the action of the appraiser at the large 
ports, and for a false return of value to the collector the subordinate 
officers would primarily be responsible in ordinary cases. The ap¬ 
praiser, like other officers in charge of large offices, cannot do all the 
work, and in most cases must depend on his subordinates, taking up 
himself only disputed cases, and keeping general guard over the busi¬ 
ness. The action of the examiners in each case is watched to a greater 
or less extent by the deputy appraiser, the appraiser, the officials of the 
collector’s office and of the naval office, the special agents, and rival 
importers. 

13. I do not know of any cases in which a Government official in the 
consular department or elsewhere has assisted or consented to, or con¬ 
nived at, the presentation to appraisers of false evidence of foreign 
values. I think, however, charges to that effect hgve been made in 
certain cases, and that the special agents’ division has a record thereof. 

14. I do not know, personally, of any payment to appraisers to get 
false returns by them. Questions of valuation do not ordinarily come 
before Treasury officials except indirectly. 

16. Duties ad valorem would be the fairest to all, and if they could 
be collected fully they would be preferable by reason of their flexibility. 
If labor at $2 has been put on an umbrella abroad, more duty should 
be paid thereon than on one on which the work was but $1 in value; 
yet under a system of specific duties the duty on both would probably 
be the same. 

In all such cases the levying of specific duties would tend to reduce 
the variety of articles imported. Those kinds of goods would be 
brought that could best bear the duty. 

But, in view of the difficulty of collecting ad valorem duties, specific 
duties may be best in nearly all cases, and especially where there is no 
great variety in the class or kind or quality of the article enumerated, 
or where these can be accurately defined. It would be difficult to ap¬ 
ply, fairly, specific duties to certain articles, and especially to articles 
like paintings, statuary, &c., and textile fabrics depending for value 
upon the pattern, the quality, the color, the style, and the additional 
work (as embroidery, &c.) thereon, and not so much upon the weight 
of the raw material contained therein. 

Under the French tariff, however, duties are levied at specific rates 
on nearly all articles, either by weight or by piece, &c., and I am not 
informed that the system does not work satisfactorily. Risks would 
have to be encountered in obtaining approximate equivalents in specific 
rates to the existing ad valorem rates. 

A change from specific to ad valorem rates would be a benefit to the 
revenue— i . e., would increase it or not according, to the amount imposed. 
It does not seem that any increase is demanded at present, and if the 
collections now made were entirely fair—if each importer paid the same 
amount of duties on the same kind of goods—no change would be neces¬ 
sary so far as the revenue collected is concerned. 

Of course the amount of revenue prescribed by Congress should be 
collected. Specific rates would diminish the tendency to bribery as 
regards values, but would increase the tendency as regards weights, 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


measurements, and counts. A reduction in the number of articles taxed 
would be a benefit in reducing the cost of collections. The British tariff 
is an example. 

17. The passage of the anti-moiety act must necessarily have increased 
the temptation to defraud the revenue, and I have no doubt has actually 
led to violation of the revenue laws. But there were such violations 
before its passage. Some of the measures then in force were considered 
unduly harsh. The matter was very fully considered by Congress, Gen¬ 
eral B. F. Butler leading in the opposition to the passage of the act, 
and Mr. Dodge in favor. The modification, by said act, of the act of 
1863, respecting the seizure of books and papers, the abolition of the 
moiety system as regards the distribution of fines, penalties, and forfeit¬ 
ures, the requirement that the court in customs forfeiture cases shall 
submit to the jury as a distinct and separate proposition, whether the 
alleged illegal acts were done with an actual intention to defraud the 
United States, and require upon such a proposition special finding by 
by such jury, and the provision that in such cases, unless intent to de¬ 
fraud shall be so found, no fine, penalty, or forfeiture shall be imposed, 
have made the dangers incident to undervaluation less, and have prob¬ 
ably increased attempts to influence appraising officers to return low 
valuations. 

18. Personal examination by consuls of all articles to be shipped to 
the United States from the larger foreign ports would be impracticable. 
The inspection of samples in certain cases is a substitute for such ex¬ 
amination. It is probable that foreign governments would make com¬ 
plaints if there were vexatious delays on the part of consuls in examining 
values and certifying invoices. The fees for certifying invoices in 
England are $2.50 for the invoice in triplicate, and one shilling and 
six pence for each of the triplicate or quadruplicate copies of the in¬ 
voice if oath be made. 

19. If the executive or the judicial powers should have greater juris¬ 
diction to interfere with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which 
is to be the basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates, 
this jurisdiction would be exercised to a great extent to reduce valua¬ 
tions, not to increase them. 

Through the special agents, the executive power might sometimes 
interfere to raise values, but I believe that on the whole such inter¬ 
ference would lead to no good general result, and that the greater juris¬ 
diction mentioned would not be very safe or useful to the revenues. 
Questions of value would be difficult to deal with at the Department 
here, on account of lack of expert knowledge and the requisite informa¬ 
tion. In any clear case, if an appraiser is shown not to have done his 
duty, there is an appropriate remedy. The matter is analogous to the 
appraisement for taxation of real estate, which is usually quite sum¬ 
mary. 

20. The rates of duty imposed on wool by the various acts since 1860 
are as follows: 




Comparative Statement of the Bates of Import Duties under the several Tariff Acts from July 30, 1846, to June 21, 1874, both inclusive. 


862 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 


'ZISl ‘9 a«nf 

iZZ.8X ‘l jo 


•0i8l l LZ ‘ooa 
!0i8l ‘H Any jo spy 


co 0 ap 0 co 0 co 0 

6 "S 3 "S 3"2 "S 3 t 3 

O Oft^n O-S 

W ^T—< „rH „© „ 

cSp-i , -3 r ^G rH G'' H G’" l G 

jScflS’CC'CS'ca 

crsasajEsas 

SpOflOeSOfflOffiO 

$ a 0, (X a Ph 


© 1; -P 

°^p§ 

-o ® © 

g-gs 

5og 

aftP 


■qo^ -8981 ‘OS Aof 
• 8981 ‘8 qoj[ ! 2,981 
‘6S‘9S‘2S MT3J\[ jo fi'joy 


CO0COOCO0CO0 • 

-4-> +-> -4-> . # CO 

" S 3 " S 3 " 53 " S 3 -S 
5 a£J c*S a£ a M 

prH „© „rH ,© _ 

'0 H ^3 H, C H 'C H 'i3 
GG fa's GG CTJ G 

aaaaaaaaa 
oaoaoaoao 
Pm P-( Ph P-i D-i 


©-g& 
®' 0 -§ 
G Si © 

c -23 

G G”£ 

0 O i, 

aCP 


•1981 ‘SS 
‘■raw • 1981 ‘S -J«K 
: 998I ‘8S ^l«r JO S J°Y 


m O ® O ® o ® o • 

« S 3 " S 3 " S 3 " ©^ 

O a o a£J a „ 

pH p© p»-M p© p 

TjHrQi-irgHfQH^ 

G G GG GG GG C 
GCGGGGGCG 
odoaosoao 
P P Ph P P 


" G-g 


' 01 


01 


GG2_- 

G 2 
O o „ 
Pfih 


o> 


‘9981 ‘T o«nf 19981 
‘9T 19981 ‘91 

••i^H ^2981 ‘8 ^J\[ 


« o ® OH 

-4^ r -4—* f CO 

" S 3 " S 3 «? 
S a2 a 1 


o 

P 


feC 

p© pO‘g 

, 3 h 'C h h p^ 

C G G G * -h 
G G G G >> G 

0 s o a ifl 

P P P 


’8981 ‘8 ••>«!« 
iS98I ‘fl Anf jo spy 


© 


G G 

s«s ® 

G -h G -h 
O © o © 

p a 


°y 

G~ 

5 ® 

G -HI 

O © 

P 


H 

01 

a 


© 

a 

»n 


•1981 ‘f-S - ooa 
: 1981 ‘2 ‘Sny JO spy 


© 

g~ 

S ® 

G -H> 

O © o © 
P P 


G ® 


G 

£ ® 
G -hi 

o © 

p 


© 

H 

© 

a 

in 


•1981 ‘S qo-n?M jo PV 



CO OS_ 

» 

0 

g" g~ 

G~ 

0 

S x 3 x" 

G -h> G -h, 

2 ®" 
G -HI 

Ph 

o © o y 

o y 

io 

p p 

p 


© 

a 

in 


"2,281 ‘8 qoJ^JM jo joy 


© © 

a © 

-H rj - 

<m a 


•9m ‘osAnf jo py 


G 

© 

-H> 

08 

© 

3 

G 

G 

© 

X 

rS 

"© 


H _'O 0 

5 §,§ 

G p.G 

© c 8 -H 

© © „p 

S a© 

G 03 - 

S'SS 

G o 00 

* 

a g'^p’3 

1 § 8 -i 

- 2 'S 

2.S 


CO £ 


cC 


c3 

^ 08 " “ ^ "G 

.ac-o © h 

9 g aa< 3 

G c g- 

5 G Q 


© 

a 


c 

© 

© 

(N 


(N 

■hT 

© 

oo 


G 

G 

G 

O 

a 

© 

a 


G 

© 

© 

. C-l . 


3S 

g”'P' 

© H 

x s 

2 2 
a a 

G H 
G © 

g a 

O x 

^ <D 

0 5 

a 

rrx 


0 

1 

* 

G 

G 


to 

© 

'S 

>■ 

g" 

© 

X 

08 

G 

G 


G 

G 

O 

a 

u 

© 

a 


G G 


o 

a 


CL 

^ © 


g g h, ,g y 

G G © •*■» 

- , a o 
—r a x g 

0 © x G 

o © « § 


p «, ® x" 

O -HI >■ -H> 

C O G 

«, ©G ® 

2 c$ ®w 


a -G S - G 

2 5 os 5 
§ ^ 


© a 


Pc» 


-Hi T3 

-H ’ ' G © 
C 0-3 .G 

© •** X 

° ©2 os 
<m G G fe 
eo~ « ^ 
^ C3 ^ 

© >■ o 2 
> © o-S 

O © -H« V 

pH S g 8 * 

08 H p—, © 
^ x 

G 

o 


x 

G 

y 

x”H y 

G C N 
O G CO 
O o i.p 

& ag c 

Sf © G 

•S a® 


© 

a 


fe£ 


- X 
O © 

B 


x £ 
“ X 
© 
© 
O G 

M 2 c3 

x G> 

B 


fee _c 

•S -G 
jS G © 
- G © 

H © 




a y 
u y 


o 


o 


oo 


























































REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 863 


Schedule K .— Wool and Woollens. 


Articles. 


All wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals, 
shall be divided, for the purpose of fixing the duties to be 
charged thereon, into the three following classes: 

Class one, clothing wools.—That is to say, merino, mestiza, 
metz, or metis wools, or other wools of merino blood, 
immediate or remote, down clothing wools, and wools 
of like character with any of the preceding, including 
such as have been heretofore usually imported into the 
United States from Buenos Ayres, New Zealand, Aus¬ 
tralia, Cape of Good Hope, Russia, Great Britain, Canada, 
and elsewhere, and also including all wools not herein¬ 
after described or designated in classes two and three. 

Class two, combing wools.—That is to say, Leicester, Cots- 
wold, Lincolnshire, down combing wools, Canada long 
wools, or other like combing wools of English blood, and 
usually known by the terms herein used, and also all 
hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals. 

Class three, carpet wools and other similar wools.—Such 
as Donskoi, native South American, Cordova, Valparaiso, 
native Smyrna, and including all such wools of like 
character as have been heretofore usually imported into 
the United States from Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Syria, 
and elsewhere. 

The duty on wools of the first class which shall be imported 
washed shall be twice the amount of the duty to which 
they would be subjected if imported unwashed ; and the 
duty on wools of gll classes which shall be imported 
scoured shall be three times the duty to which they would 
be subjected if imported unwashed. The duty upon wool 
of the sheep, or hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like 
animals, which shall be imported in any other than ordi¬ 
nary condition, as now and heretofore practiced, or 
which shall be changed in its character or condition for 
the purpose of evading the duty, or which shall be reduced 
in value by the admixture of dirt or any other foreign 
substance, shall be twice the duty to which it would be 
otherwise subject. 

Wools of the first class, the value whereof at the last port 
or place whence exported to the United States, excluding 
charges in such port, shall be thirty cents or less per 
pound, ten cents per pound. 

Wools of the same class, the value whereof at the last port 
or place whence exportd to the United States, excluding 
charges in such port, shall exceed thirty cents per pound, 
twelve cents per pound. 

Wools of the second class, and all hair of the alpaca, goat, 
and other like animals, the value whereof at the last 
port or place whence exported to the United States, ex¬ 
cluding charges in such port, shall be thirty cents or less 
per pound, ten cents per pound. 

Wools of the same class, the value whereof at the last port 
or place whence exported to the United States, excluding 
charges in such port, shall exceed thirty cents per pound, 
twelve cents per pound. 

Wools of the third class, the value whereof at the last port 
or place whence exported to the United States, excluding 
charges in such port, shall be twelve cents or less per 
pound, two and a half cents per pound. 

Wools of the same class, the value whereof at the last port 
or place whence exported to the United States, excluding 
charges in such poK, shall exceed twelve cents per pound, 
five cents per pound. 

Wools on the skin, the same rates as other wools, the 
quantity and value to be ascertained under such rules as 
the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. 


Rev. Stats.; acts 
Feb. 8,1875; Mar. 
3, 1875; July 1, 
1879; June 14, 
1880; May 6. 1882; 
Dec. 23, 1882. 


Act Mar. 3, 1883. 




10 cents per pound 
and 11 per cent. 


! Pound, 12 cents 
! and 10 per cent. 


Pound, 10 cents 
I and 11 per cent. 


1 Pound, 12 cents 
and 10 per cent. 


Pound, 3 cents, 


| Pound, 6 cents, 


Per pound, 
cents. 

Pound, 12 cents. 

Pound, 10 cents. 

• 

Pound, 12 cents. 

Pound, 234 cents. 

Pound, 5 cents. 


It will be seen that under the act of 1846 unmanufactured wool was 
dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem, this rate being reduced 
to 24 per cent, by the act of 1857. Under these two acts, wool valued 
at not more than 20 cents per pound was free. The act of 1861 im- 










864 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


posed duties, as shown above, of 5 per cent., and 3 cents and 9 cents 
per pound, according to the value, and these rates continued until the 
act of June 30, 1864, when duties were raised to 3 cents per pound on 
unmanufactured wool valued at 12 cents or less per pound; to 6 cents 
per pound on wool valued from 12 to 24 cents per pound; 10 cents per 
pound and 10 per cent, on wool valued from 24 to 32 cents per pound; 
and to 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, on avooI valued at over 32 
cents per pound. The act of March 2, 1867, changed some of these 
rates slightly, making wool valued at 32 cents per pound or less dutiable 
at 10 cents and 11 per cent., and imposing double and treble duty 
on. wools washed or scoured, as the case might be. These rates re¬ 
mained unchanged until, by the act of June 6, 1872, the duties were 
‘ ‘ horizontally ’ ’ reduced 10 per cent. The act of March 3,1875, repealed 
this reduction, and the preceding old rates were restored and remained 
unchanged until, by the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, the duties 
were reduced by the removal of the ad valorem rates from wools of the 
first and second class, and the fixing of the duties on wools of the third 
class at the rate of 2^ cents and 5 cents per pound, instead of 3 cents 
and 6 cents per pound, respectively. 

Difficulty in some cases has arisen in administering the law now in 
force, in consequence of the difference in duties dependent on the value 
of the wool imported. This has been so, especially as regards wools of 
the third class, the duty on which, if the value be 12 cents or under per 
pound, is 2 2 cents per pound, and if the value be over 12 cents, 5 cents 
per pound. Twelve cents per pound has happened to be very nearly 
the value of certain wools, and the decision of the question, whether 
duties accrued on the importation at the rate of 2? cents per pound, or 
at double that rate, depended upon evidence which was not always 
satisfactory. The difference in the cost of i of a cent or less per pound 
might suffice to double the duty. It is evident that the distinguishing 
value should not be so near the average value. 

21. Examination at one place, under the supervision of a responsible 
officer, of all baggage arriving at the larger ports, would tend to mini¬ 
mize the taking of bribes or gratuities by the officers examining bag¬ 
gage arriving in the United States. 

At New York, I am convinced that, in the case of some examining 
officers, it has been the practice to accept or even to exact such gratui¬ 
ties. Whether it still continues I am unable to say. I have heard less 
complaint in regard to it at other ports. It is a shame to the country, 
and should be broken up. 

22. I understand that undervaluations have been largely of silk goods, 
which are subject to a high rate of duty. Of course the larger the duty 
the more temptation there is to evade its payment. It does not appear, 
however, that the undervaluations and smuggling depend altogether 
upon the rate of duty. Diamonds, jewelry, and laces are smuggled 
because they can be put in a small compass, and be easily transported. 
Silks are undervalued for the reason that it is impracticable for the 
Government to ascertain the true dutiable value. In either of these 
classes of cases the law would be evaded at times were the duties much 
lighter than at present. Safety is an element considered by smugglers, 
as well as the amount of which the Government can be defrauded, and 
revenue laws should be framed with this fact in view. 

23. Evasions of the revenue laws occur at other ports than New York, 
but at the latter the volume of business done is so much larger, and 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 865 

the interests at stake are so much greater than elsewhere, it is reasona¬ 
ble to suppose the frauds there would be more considerable than at 
other places. 

24. It appears to me the reason why every officer who has made false 
returns has not been indicted is because of the difficulty in finding 
legal proof to convict. If such proof exists, proceedings should be in¬ 
stituted without delay. It must be remembered that in many cases 
there is room for an honest difference of opinion, and that where there 
are conflicting interests charges are often made, and are often false. 

Very respectfully, 

T. B. SANDERS. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


No. 239. 

H. A. LOCKWOOD—Appointed Clerk of First Class, Treasury Department, Novem¬ 
ber 14, 1853; promoted through all the clerical grades, and appointed Chief Clerk 

September 1, 1869 ; appointed Deputy Commissioner of Customs July 1, 1875. 

Treasury Department, 

Office of Commissioner of Customs, 

Washington City , 1). 6 Y ., October 21, 1885. 

Sir : I have read the questions in the printed circular handed me by 
you, and find they relate principally to the execution of the laws gov¬ 
erning the collection of the customs revenue by the officers stationed at 
the various ports of the United States, and, from their nature, it is not 
possible for a person confined to office-work here to give intelligent or 
valuable suggestions. I have the honor, however, to submit the follow¬ 
ing remarks for what they may be worth : 

I. Refund of duties to be reduced to a minimum , and no interest to be al¬ 
lowed on judgments for refunds. 

Taxes being arbitrary exactions, dependent on statutes only, it is of 
course true that no more should be exacted than the law demands. 
Still, on equitable grounds, refunds of duty exacted in excess should be 
restricted to the minimum, for, except in case of short shipment, cleri¬ 
cal error, damage, or destruction, it is believed that when more duty is 
exacted than the law requires, the trade, and through it the consumer, 
feels the full force of the exaction, as the excess is charged upon the 
goods as they are put upon the market. The only person benefited by 
the refund is the importer, who, if he Ins, as it is believed he has, 
charged a price for his goods that includes the duty, he receives twice 
payment of the duty exacted in excess—once through trade, and once 
through refund by the Government. 

Under these circumstances, it is believed that it would be just to pro¬ 
cure such a change in the present laws as would prevent the payment 
of interest on judgments of court for refund of duties, especially as 
from the long time that in some cases elapses between the inception of 
the suit and its final decision—in some cases twenty years—it would 
appear that if parties do not actually delay they do not actively press 
matters to a good conclusion, looking no doubt on a good case in court 
as an investment at 6 per cent, against the Government; and lurtker, 
attorneys, having a contingent interest in the suits, do not desire the 

55 A 



8G6 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


cases entered for judgment or discontinuance, or a certificate of ‘‘proba¬ 
ble cause” noted until the last practicable moment, so as to secure all 
the interest possible. 

II. Limitation of free importation of personal effects. 

It is suggested that- a limitation on the free importation of personal 
effects would be a step in the direction of equalization of taxes as be¬ 
tween rich and poor. It is not thought that the imposition of duty on 
personal effects aboye a certain amount would deter any considerable 
number of wealthy persons who are desirous of immigrating to this 
country from so doing. At the same time, it is evident that the un¬ 
limited free importation of personal effects is susceptible of great abuse, 
not only by wealthy immigrants, but by tourists and those who for 
trade purposes are continually passing back and forth between this 
and the old world. 

III. Abolition of titles of subordinate customs officers. 

The titles or designations of subordinate officers of the customs hav¬ 
ing become numerous, would it not be in the interest of efficiency and 
economy to have all customs officers other than those which are Presi¬ 
dential appointments, filled under the one designation of customs offi¬ 
cers, with power given to the chief officer of the customs in the district 
where they are appointed to detail any customs officer under him to 
any duty within his district. An arrangement of this kind would en¬ 
able a collector of customs to handle his force more efficiently by placing 
those appointed under him in situations to which they are fitted either 
by natural aptitude or acquired knowledge, and do away with many 
questions as to the legality or propriety of employing persons appointed 
under one designation to discharge duties in another capacity. It 
would also make the chief officer responsible for the distribution and 
efficiency of his force. 

To accomplish this would require modification of the laws in relation 
to the appointment and compensation of the subordinates, which laws 
I think might be merged into one, giving the Secretary of the Treasury 
power to limit and fix the compensation. Why should the salary of a 
deputy or an inspector be fixed by law, when the salaries of clerks and 
many other classes of employes are left to the discretion of the Depart¬ 
ment? 

IV. Fixed annual compensation for principal customs officers. 

A fixed annual compensation for collectors of customs, payable from 
the Treasury, is in many respects preferable to the present system of 
paying a part salary and commissions from the Treasury, and allowing 
a portion to be exacted from the people in the way of official fees. 

I am aware that this question has been discussed by the Department, 
but it may be that a statement of the case from an accounting point of 
view has not been presented. 

The payment of fees as compensation to United States officials, I 
hold, on general principles, is of itself vicious. When the compensa¬ 
tion is not limited, or when the usual collections are less than the limit, 
the tendency is towards making business for the sake of the fees, or to the 
exaction of illegal fees. Money that does not pass through the Treas¬ 
ury (as when fees are collected and retained for compensation) does 
not appear in the receipts and expenditures, except in the emolument 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 867 


statements. The expenses of collecting the revenue from customs is 
greater by the amount of fees collected and retained than is shown by 
the appropriation ledgers, (since the beginning of the Government, many 
millions.) 

It gives the people at large an exaggerated idea of the emoluments 
of collectors of customs. It in some cases fails to pay a decent or ade¬ 
quate compensation, and finally it causes great delay in the settlement 
of accounts in the Department. 

Section 305, Revised Statutes, does not allow credit to be given a 
person depositing money in the United States Treasury until a covering 
warrant is issued. The compensation of many collectors being partly 
dependent on commissions on their collections, it follows that the col¬ 
lection accounts must be adjusted before the expenditure and emolu¬ 
ment accounts are taken up. 

Usually it is two months, or even more, after money is deposited 
before the warrant on the deposit reaches the accounting officers. 
Aside from the injustice to the depositors, this delay makes a corre¬ 
sponding one in the adjustment of the accounts. If the issuing of 
warrants could be expedited, it would insure more immediate action on 
the accounts. 

If the collectors are paid a fixed salary, the disbursement accounts 
could be adjusted without reference to their collection accounts. The 
payment of fixed salaries to collectors has been found to work well in 
the large ports where it has been tried. 

V. Abolition of customs fees. 

From a consideration of the reasons for payment of customs officers 
by a fixed compensation, and, further, that the primary reason for the 
collection of fees would be extinguished by that course, and that the 
collection of fees is a vexatious manner of raising revenue, and savors 
more of antiquated monarchical policy than that of our day and gOA^- 
ernment, would it not be well to consider, in this connection, the Avhole 
question of the abolition of all fees? 

VI. Substitution of declarations for oaths in customs cases. 

A natural repugnance to the indiscriminate use of oaths in the cus¬ 
toms service leads me to remind you of the recommendation which has 
been before made in the public prints, that custom-house oaths be 
abolished, and a declaration on honor be substituted therefor 5 and as 
these declarations are purely monetary, their truthfulness to be enforced 
by a fine in money in proportion to the interests affected. 

VII. Payment of expenses of collecting the revenue from customs by check 
from the Department. 

I 11 all rhe collection districts excepting the large ones it is thought 
that the payment of the salaries of subordinates and other expenses 
by check on vouchers furnished could be advantageously substituted 
for the present.one, these vouchers to be checked in . the Secretary’s 
office as “correct as to appointment or authority and rate of pay,” 
and by the accounting officers as to “oath, clerical computation, and 
duplicate payments,” before payment No advances to collectors would 
then be required, and a reduction would be made in the labor of set¬ 
tlement in all the offices in the Department connected with these ac 
counts. 


868 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


The theory of the Treasury rules relative to disbursing money is to 
throw safeguards around its disbursements additional to those employed 
among business men. The fact is, that the business man examines his 
bills carefully and has them corrected before payment, while the Treas¬ 
ury pays its bills first, and weeks and months afterward they reach the 
accounting officers for examination, and often inaccuracies in vouch¬ 
ers are found, as shown by the disallowances in disbursing officers 7 
accounts. 

This presents another reason for the examination (and checking) and 
payment of these bills at the Department. 

VIII. Rela ing to customs suits in court. 

From frequent inquiries which this office is compelled to make at 
the office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, and the information, or want 
of information, obtained, an inference may be drawn that the court 
officers of the United States do not, in many cases, act with prompti¬ 
tude and efficiency in cases of fines, penalties, and forfeitures under 
the customs laws coming under their supervision. 

From the indication thus afforded, it seems to me that a thorough 
examination of the records of the various courts of the United States 
would lead to the disposing of many old suits, and in some cases to 
the recovery of money, both from outside parties and from the registry 
of the court, into the Treasury. 1 am not conversant with the method 
of keeping and accounting for money paid into court, but in United 
States courts should not the law be so framed as to require all court 
moneys to be deposited in a United States depositary, and stated ac¬ 
counts made and settled on vouchers for the receipts and disbursements, 
such accounts to be adjusted in the Treasury? 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

H. A. LOCKWOOD, 

Deputy Commissioner of Customs. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. JUSTICE BLATCH- 

FORD. 


No. 1. 


September 25, 1885. 

Dear Sir : In the inquiries that I am prosecuting into the present 
condition of the customs service at New York and the execution of 
tariff law, I am perplexed by the conflicting representations that are 
made to me about the effect of the legislation of 1874 on prosecutions 
in court for undervaluations, and especially on the instructions given 
to the jury by the trial judge prior to 1874, in respect to the intent with 
which the invoice was made and the burden of proof. Your experience 
as a judge on the trial of suits for forfeiture Inis been so large and varied 
that I venture to write to you on the subject. 




REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 869 


It is said, on the one hand, that in prosecutions before 1874 the trial 
judge did not submit to the jury the questions of intent and require 
the jury to find affirmatively that the invoice was knowingly made to 
evade the payment of duty, or return a verdict for the claimant. And 
it is said, on the other hand, that the law of 1874 worked such a radical 
change on the subject of intent and the duty of the trial judge and 
jury that under that law a verdict for the prosecution is now well-nigh 
impossible, unless by a confession of the claimant. My perplexity in 
face of these representations is over the actual practice of the trial judge 
in New York before and since 1874, or the instruction to the jury on 
the intent and burden of proof, and if you shall feel at liberty to say to 
me what was your own practice in that regard, I shall deem it a great 
personal and official favor. 

I need not add that any suggestions out of your large and most valu¬ 
able judicial experience in that class of suits which you may be willing 
to give me in respect to the comparative working on those points of 
the law of March 3, 1863, as well as the law prior to 1874, and the anti¬ 
moiety law* of the last-named year, will be most welcome. 

With great respect, your obdient servant, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Hon. Samuel Blatchford, 

Associate Justice U. S. Supreme Court. 


No. 2. 

New York, October 6, 1885. 

Dear Sir : I have received your letter of September 25 last, making 
inquiry as to the actual practice of the trial-judge in New York before 
and since the act of June 22,1874, chapter 391, in instructing the jury 
as to intent and the burden of proof in cases covered by section 16 of 
that act, which section is as follows: 

“Sec. 16. That in all actions, suits, and proceedings in any court of 
the United States, now pending or hereafter commenced or prosecuted, 
to enforce or declare the forfeiture of any goods, wares, or merchandise, 
or to recover the value thereof, or any other sum alleged to be forfeited 
by reason of any violation of the provisions of the customs-revenue laws, 
or of any of such provisions, in which action, suit, or proceeding an 
issue or issues of fact shall have been joined, it shall be the duty of the 
court, on the trial thereof, to submit to the jury, as a distinct and sep¬ 
arate proposition, whether the alleged acts were done with an actual 
intention to defraud the United States, and to require on such prop¬ 
osition a special finding by such jury ; or, if such issues be tried by the 
court without a jury, it shall be the duty of the court to pass upon and 
decide such proposition as a distinct and separate finding of fact; and 
in such cases, unless intent to defraud shall be so found, no fine, penalty, 
or forfeiture shall be imposed.” 

My own practice on the subject before the act of 1874 is set forth in 
my charge to the jury in March, 1868, in the Sherry-wine case, (2 Bene¬ 
dict, 249.) That was a case of seizure of wine as forfeited for under¬ 
valuation. On pages 290, 291, and 292 you will find my charge on the 
burden of proof and of intent. The jury were instructed that while 
under section 4 of the act of May 28, 1830, (4 Stats., 409,) it must, in 
order to a verdict for the Government, be found that the invoices were 




870 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 


made up with an intent, by false valuations, to defraud the Govern¬ 
ment, and while under section 1 of the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stats., 
737,) it must, in order to a verdict for the Government, be found that 
the entry by a false invoice or other false paper, or the attempt to 
make such entry, was done knowingly, it had been the law by statute 
since the act of March 2, 1799, (1 Stats., 637,) affirmed by the Supreme 
Court as lately as December, 1865, in Cliquot’s champagne, (3 Wallace, 
114,) that where the court should, on the trial, decide that probable 
cause had been shown for the prosecution, the burden of proof was 
thrown on the claimant of the goods seized to dispel the suspicion 
and to explain the circumstances which seemed to render it probable 
that there had been a knowing undervaluation. 

Again, in December, 1869, in the Silk-ribbon case, (3 Benedict, 536,) 
a case of seizure of ribbons for undervaluation, my charge to the jury 
was the same as in the Sherry-wine case. It was summed up in these 
w'ords: “If, upon the whole evidence, the claimants have not proved, 
to your satisfaction either that the goods were invoiced at their actual 
market value, or that the failure to so invoice them was the result of 
an honest mistake or of an accident, your verdict will be for the United 
States; otherwise, for the claimants.” 

The case of Sinn (14 Blatchford, 550) was tried in the district court 
here, before me, before section 16 of the act of June 22, 1874, went into 
effect. In the report of that case, (ubi supra ,) when it was before Chief- 
Justice Waite in the circuit court here on writ of error, he says, in his 
decision, that the new act “made actual intention to defraud an es¬ 
sential question in suits to enforce forfeitures under the customs laws.” 
He also says, in regard to a case under section 1 of the act of March 3, 
1863, (12 Stats., 738,) now r section 2864 of the Revised Statutes, which 
provides for a forfeiture of merchandise where its owmer knowdngly 
makes an entry of it by means of a false invoice, or of an invoice which 
does not contain a true statement of all the particulars required by law : 
“Every importer is presumed to know the law' under which he makes 
his importations. In contemplation of law, therefore, when he makes 
an entry upon an invoice which does not state truly what the law re¬ 
quires, he knowingly does it. At the time of this seizure and trial no 
question of actual fraudulent intent need be considered. Knowledge, 
actual or presumptive, was all that the courts need inquire into.” 

In Lew r ey vs. United States, (15 Blatchford, 1,) which arose after the 
act of June 22,1874, went into effect, and was a case of seizure of goods 
for forfeiture, I submitted it to the jury to determine whether the 
importer “fraudulently and knowingly,-with an actual intention to 
defraud the United States did so import and bring these goods into 
the United "States, as to cause or procure them to be withheld from 
entry in the manifest of the vessel.” The jury found that he did. 
Chief-Justice Waite, (ubi supra,) in the circuit court, oh a writ of error, 
held the charge to be right. s 

You also invite suggestions from me as to the comparative working 
on the points above mentioned of the act of March 3, 1863, and other 
law's before 1874, and of the act of June 22, 1874. While I thank you 
for the courtesy of your invitation, I think I ought not to make sug¬ 
gestions of the kind outside of a judicial proceeding. 

Very truly, yours, 

SAM’L BLATCHFORD. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 871 
No. 3. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, I). C., October 12, 1885. 

Dear Sir : I thank you very much for your lucid and most satis¬ 
factory reply to my inquiry in respect to your instructions to juries in 
suits for forfeiture under the laws of 1863 and 1874. My original pur¬ 
pose was to ask your valuable aid only for my own guidance, but the 
information you give is so timely and controlling in a public sense that 
I wish to ask you if I may have your permission to transmit our cor¬ 
respondence to Congress with my annual report. 

Respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING. 

Hon. Samuel Blatchford, 

Associate Justice , U. S. Supreme Court. 


No. 4. 

1432 K Street, N. W., Washington, October 13, 1885. 

My Dear Sir : I have your letter of the 12th instant. I have no 
objection to the transmission to Congress with your annual report of 
the letters to which you refer. I would suggest, for the better under¬ 
standing of the matter, that the full reports of the cases to which I re¬ 
fer be copied from the books and appended to the correspondence. 

I shall be very glad at all times to give you any information and 
render you every aid which you may desire, and which may be within 
my province, either by letter or by oral communication. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

SAM’L BLATCHFORD. 


Hon. Daniel Manning. 



. 

. 































































' 























































































INDEX. 


A. 

Act of Congress— Pace 

Of March 2, 1799, establishing special agents' force. 974 

Of May 12,1870, relative to special agents. Discussion in House of Representatives pend¬ 
ing consideration of... 274 

Adams, Cl. C., special agent, Philadelphia: Answer to questions to customs officials. 407 414 

Ad valorem and specific rates of duty: Relative advantages of, in the collection of 



693, 698, 700, 701, 703, 706, 708, 714, 718, 720, 721, 722, 723, 728, 734, 736, 737, 740, 741, 742 743’745’732’ 
755, 756, 757, 758, 760, 763, 767, 770, 774, 777, 782, 787, 790, 796, 797, 800, 802, 811, 814, 815, 817! 819’ 821! 
825, 830, 834, 836, 840, 847, 848, 851, 854, 855, 859, 360. (See also “Specific”.) 

Ad vancementof invoice values. 54 

Affidavit* of exporters, in shipments for drawbacks, allowed to be changed. 36 

Albany, IV. Y., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat. 129 

Alexandria, Va„ port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.. 30 

Angerine, Frank, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officers. 788 

Animals for breeding purposes : Evasions of the revenue law under this section. 396, 425 

Annapolis, IVld., port of: Statement of collector as to the reduction of force thereat. 131 

Apalachicola, Fla., port of: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat .:... 132 

Appraisers. (See, also, “Merchant Appraisers.”) 

Difference between the duties of, at Boston and at New York. 146 

Disposition of, to shield importers from consequences of undervaluation. 46 

Engaged in illicit trade. 30 

Failure to advance invoices to true market value. 336 

Responsibility of, for correct returns affecting the dutiable value of goods_434,440, 447,455, 459, 

462, 466, 477, 479, 492, 496, 497, 500, 502, 504, 508, 510, 513, 516, 521, 523, 525, 527, 528, 529, 539, 544, 555, 
563, 566, 569, 571, 574, 578, 586, 587, 634, 642, 656, 657, 691, 694, 698, 700, 701, 702, 704, 706, 708, 709, 711, 
712, 715, 718, 731, 734, 736, 738, 743, 744, 747, 852, 762, 773, 774, 783, 784, 788, 802, 829, 830, 835, 847, 850, 
853, 860. 

Tenderness towards importers. . 46 

Their reluctance to advance values to “penalty” limits... 46 

Simply certifv to the collectors’ values fixed by examiners and assistant appraisers .339, 674, 

687, 714, 722, 736, 738, 739, 743, 745, 747, 748, 756, 757, 758, 762, 763, 770, 784, 795, 796, 797, 802, 811, 


821, 825, 833, 840. 

General , At New York. The duties of his office... 216 

Department at New York. Assistant appraisers and examiners in . 287 

Classes of merchandise examined in various divisions of... 287 

Number and compensation of assistant appraisers and examiners employed . 287 

Work of, during the first six months to the fiscal year 1885 . . 287 

Necessity for thorough reorganization of..".. 46, 773 

Appraising officers: 

Have failed to exercise properly, their power of appraising undervalued goods. 44 

Largely responsible for the practice of undervaluation.,. 337 

Requested to co operate with the Department for suppression of undervaluations. 99 

Unacquainted with true values. 336 

Unwilling to impose penal dutiss. 417 

Confusion in regard to dutiable values. (See “Values, Dutiable”.) 

Appraisements and classifications. (See “Classification”.) 

Appraisement: 

Immediate transportation of passengers’ baggage without..... 314 

Of silks: Unsuccessful efforts to secure proper and uniform. 40 

Of wool at Philadelphia. (See, also, “Wool”)... 339 


Ascertainment of dutiable values by the collector. The question of the interference 
of the executive and judicial departments in. (See “ Values, Dutiable ” ) 
Assessments of duty: Lower than the law prescribes. (See “Rates of Duty”.) 


Average rates of customs taxation— 

In the United States . 643, 644 

In Great Britain from 1800 to 1880... 643 

In France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Italy, and Netherlands. 643 

Ayer, fra, jr., special agent, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 381 


15 . 

Bae^aire of passengers, inspection of, at New York and elsewhere.328, 333, 341, 364, 370, 379, 

384 393 413, 418, 421, 428, 432, 438, 440, 444, 453, 457, 459, 472, 486, 488, 494, 497, 502, 505, 508, 511, 519, 

5 >0 521 526, 535, 538, 541, 545, 560, 564. 570, 577, 588, 592, 605, 646, 653, 658, 667, 672, 675, 677, 681, 684, 

695’, 703, 711, 717, 718, 723, 768, 797, 811, 818, 830, 832, 834, 838, 842, 847, 864 

Order relating to immediate transportation of. 314 

Opinion of Solicitor as to shipment of, under Immediate Transportation act. 313 

Transportation of, at New York. Cost of. 309 

Immediate transportation of, without appraisement. 314 

Bogus packages of, sent to appraisers’ stores. 487 

Smuggling in. 341 

1 


873 













































874 


INDEX. 


Baker, Haydn HI., examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to custom officials. 

Baker, James B,, appraiser, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Baltimore, Hid., port of— 

Statement of appraiser as to reduction in force possible thereat. 

Answers of customs officials at, to letter of inquiry of the Secretary. 

Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat .-. 

Bancroft, W. E., examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Bangor, file., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of fox*ce possible thereat. 

Bard well, Henry C., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Barnard, Frank E., examiner, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Barnes, James HI., examiner Chicago : Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 

Barnes, Joseph IIdeputy collector: Answer to inquiries of customs officials...... ..- 

Barney, A. HI., special agent at Galveston, Tex.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Repor t as to existing rate of duty on wool. -. .-. 

Barnstable, HIass.,port of: Statement of collector as to reduction offorce possible thereat. 
Barre, William, deputy collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials... 
Bartram, Deputy collector: Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers... 
Statements reflecting upon the officers of the Department concerning the selection of mer¬ 
chant appraisers. ; -..-. 

Bartram, N. B., weigher, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Barge Office at Hew York : 

Complaints against system .. 

Contract for transportation of baggage. Secretary’s letter to collector concerning the 

transfer of . ..-._. 

Collector notifies Department of transfer of contract for the transportation of baggage- 

Collector at New York—Transmits report of surveyor as to cost of. 

Directed to continue inquiry as to. 

States reasons why an extended inquiry should not be made... 

Requested to furnish comparative statement of cost of inspecting baggage at. 

Makes further report on. . - ...... 

Notifies Mr. Starin of the proposed termination of the contract for transportation 

of baggage.•. .. 

Transmits communication of J. H. Starin relative to.. . 

Correspondence with Mr. Starin concerning the termination of the contract for the trans¬ 
fer of baggage of passengers, referred to the Solicitor for advice. 

Expenses of. 307, 309, 310, 

Inquiry into the management of, directed by the Secretary .. 

H. B. James, chief of customs division, states the disputed points in the “transportation 

of baggage” contract. . 

Letters to steamship companies authorizing them to land their passengers at their own 

docks. 

Letter of the Secretary of the Treasury notifying collector that expenses of landing pas¬ 
sengers and baggage at, will not be borne by the Government. 

Letters of the Secretary of the Treasury directing that permission be granted steamship 

companies to land passengers at their own docks...... . .. 

Letter of special deputy collector concerning the notification to steamship companies of 

the termination of contract with Starin. . 

Solicitor of the Treasury in regard to the termination of the contract with Starin. 

Opinion of the Solicitor with respect to shipment of passengers’ baggage. 

Protest of John H. Starin against the alleged violation of his contract for transportation 

of baggage .. 

Report in favor of by deputy collector Williams at New York. 

Report of naval officer at New York on . 

Report upon the management of, by the surveyor of the port. 

Acting Secretary of the Treasury notifies the collector that steamship companies may land 

their passengers at the Barge Office at their own expense... 

Amount paid John H. Starin for transportation of baggage. 

Assistant Secretary French reserves consideration of baggage-transportation contract for 

his successor. ... ... 

Assistant Secretary Fairchild advises against allowing the assignment of the transportation- 

of-baggage contract . 

The Acting Solicitor of the Treasury refuses to approve transfer of contract for transpor¬ 
tation of baggage. . . 

Solicitor of the Treasury advises that the notice of termination of contract has been prop¬ 
erly given. 

Starin’s protest against termination of contract referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury... 
Secretary of the Treasury declines to approve the assignment of the baggage-transporta¬ 
tion contract... 

Transportation of baggage to. 

The transfer of the Starin contract for the transfer of baggage to the . 

Batershall, Jessie P., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials_ 

Bath, Hie., port of: Statement of deputy collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.. 
Beattie, H. S., surveyor, New York: 

Reply to additional inquiries as to customs matters. 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 

Beaufort, IV. lb, port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat... 
Beaufort, ». €!., port of: Statement of collector as to possible reduction offorce thereat... 

Beck, Thomas, appraiser, San Francisco: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Beecher, H. F., collector, Port Townsend, Wash.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Bel last, Hie., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 

Benedict, James E., surveyor at New York: 

Report upon the management of the Barge Office . 

Report as to comparative cost of inspecting passengers’ baggage at Barge Office, New York. 
Bingham, IV. W., special agent: 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 

Report on examination of business in the district of Boston and Charlestown. 

Bingham and Hinds Commission (1878): Reference to report of. 

Bird, Jos., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 


Page. 

748 

808 

137 
434 
134 
828 

138 
785 
565 
565 
476 
359 
365 

139 

677 
78 

56 

678 

313, 315 

290 

291 
306 

300 
294 

306 

301 

319 
303 

320 
311,312 

293 

292 
281 

321 
318,319 

326 

326 
313 

321 

298 

299' 

294 

327 
309 

292 

293 

292 

320 

324 

293 
290 
290 
793 
139 

661 

655 

139 

140 
834 
831 
140 

294 

307 

385 

101 

558 

528 





































































INDEX. 


875 


George IV., assistant appraiser, New York: Answer 


Page. 


696 

538 

50 


""official's"’ 1 '*’ " aoAO ‘'“ llt appraiser, new xorx: Answer to inquiries to customs 

BImncII, A, II, collector, Buffalo : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Bituminous coal: Regulations governing exportation of, for benefit of drawback, inade¬ 
quate to protect revenue... 

Bintcliford, Hon. Samuel: Correspondence with the Secretary "of’the’Treasury as to 

suits tor forfeiture... 869-872 

Booth, James: Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers* *. 86 

Boston, port of: 

Answers of customs officials thereat to inquiries to customs officials . 468 

Examination of customs business iu the district of Boston and Charlestown. 101 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 141 

Customs cases, pending in United States courts for Massachusetts district....472, 473 474 

Statement of appraiser concerning the reduction of force possible thereat.’ 146 

Statement of naval officer concerning the reduction of force possible thereat. 152 

Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat. . 

Statement of result of inquiries by special agents as to the condition of business at.] 

Bostwick, G. B*., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Bout well, Hon. George S., Secretary of Treasury: Statement to Congress concerning 

the special agents’ force . 

Bon ne, Kohert E., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 

Bon ne, Hamiiel, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Boycotting of merchants who give honest opinions to appraisers as to undervaluations _ 

Brackett, special agent, New York: 

Fails to utilize information as to values coming into his possession. 22 

Charges against, filed with the commission.... 9 

—Chalker case. Investigation ordered. 3 

—Chalker case. Investigation, and report on. .. .... 13 

Bribery and venality : As to allegations of, in the customs service ..19, 20, 347, 360, 363, 369, 374, 381, 
388, 405, 412, 424, 425, 426, 444, 448, 459, 466, 469, 477, 479, 486, 492, 497, 500, 502, 5t>4, 510, 520, 541, 544, 
556, 568, 569, 574, 590, 591, 630, 635, 655, 660, 674, 687, 690, 694, 704, 708, 716, 727, 728, 733, 741, 767, 810, 
833, 851. ’ 

Bridgeport, Conn., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat 
Briggs, H. S., United States general appraiser, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs 

officials . ... . . . . ..... 

Brown, George V., United States general appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to 

customs officials .. .. 

Bristol, B. port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 

Brownsville, Tex., port of: 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat, . 

Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials. 

Buffalo, port of: Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials. 

Burk, E. J., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Burlington, Iow a, port of: Statement of survey or concerning reduction of force possible 

thereat. ..*..'.. 

B urlington, Vt., port of: 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 

Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials. 

Burrill, Charles, examiner, San Francisco: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Burt, Silas W., naval officer, New York: 

Answer to additional inquiry on customs matters . 648 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 635 

C. 


141 

101 

721 

274 

777 

761 

43 


154 


668 

155 

155 
536 
538 
764 

157 

156 
542 
846 


Cairo, Ill., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat. 157 

Caldwell, William, surveyor, Cincinnati: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 571 

Cape Vincent, IV. V., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible 

thereat. . 158 

Carboucll, J. C.: Proposal to transfer baggage fit Barge Office, New York . 302 

Carhart, 1 1 . H., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 771 

Carncr, A. I*., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 704 

Cartage System at New York: Irregularities in . 606 

Castine, ITIe., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 159 

Cedar Keys, Fla., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 160 
Certification of invoices by consuls. (See ” Consular Certification.”) 

Chalker, special agent, New York : 

Charges against, filed with the commission. 9 

Fails to utilize information as to values coming into his possession .... 22 

Charleston, S. C., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat 160 

Chicago, III., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 163 

Church, George B., inspector of customs: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 421 

Cincinnati, Ohio, port of: 

Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat. 162 

Answer of surveyor to inquiries to customs officials.-. 577 

Clark, I). C., examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 813 

Clark, Frederick II., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials- 736 

Clark, Willis G., collector. Mobile, Ala.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 579 

Clark, William II., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 724 

Classification of merchandise for assessment of duties..32, 33, 63, 334, 429, 446, 450, 469, 489, 

636, 664, 814, 822, 833 

Recommendation that questions of, be determined by appraising officers instead of collect¬ 
ors . . ^89 

Disputes as to, How settled. 608 

Differences in, at the several ports.-. -. : .. 126 

Difference in classification of identical goods when brought in by different importers. 33 


1 IIJ proper ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... f, liO, OOT, OOU, OiU, I) 1 * 4 !, OiJ\J y tut', 1 , I l u, i wuv f 

601,664,682,700,711,716,753,839 

Simplification of the present system recommended. 439 

Jurisdiction of the courts in regard to. 450 
































































876 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Cleveland, Ohio, port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.. 164 

Cochen, Fred., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 765 

Collectors’ suits 261, 267, 377, 387, 469, 419, 423, 434, 436, 438, 443, 446, 454, 466, 468, 472, 473, 474, 475, 477 

490, 496, 504,512, 516, 525, 533, 540, 543, 547, 548, 552, 567, 573, 578, 581, 584, 586, 589, 601, 602, 610, 629, 

637, 656, 672, 682, 685, 697, 700, 708, 716, 724, 725, 732, 741, 756, 766, 796, 798, 800, 802, 803, 809, 833, 842, 

845, 849, 858, 868 

At New York, statement of issues in. 614 

At New York since 1863, summary of. 628 

At Boston. 472, 473, 474 

Special juries needed to try them... 437 

Reasons for delay in the disposition of. 446 

Recommendation that the time now allowed to the importer in which to bring suit be re. 

duced.,. . 446 

Indifference on the part of district attorneys a cause for delay in the disposition of. 446 

Statement of, at Philadelphia... 23 

Recommendation that the best legal talent be employed in ... ... 602 

Recommendation that collectors be required to make report in, to district attorney’s office 

within twenty days.-. 612 

Recommendation that following a decision in a suit the collector be required to immedi¬ 
ately adjust other such suits pending according to that decision... 613 

Reference of disputed legal questions in, to referee, proposed as remedy for present delays 613 
Collectors: Powers and duties of, in matters of disagreement between merchant appraisers 

and general appraisers. . .399, 601, 633, 679 

Collins, Charles . 1 ., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 530 

Collusion between persons making entries and customs officials: As to allega- 


518, 522, 524, 526, 530, 531, 533, 540, 547, 551, 567, 585, 589, 601, 629, 655, 667, 668, 670, 676, 678, 
702. 715, 719, 724, 841, 858 

Combs, II. Wheeler, United States general appraiser, New York: 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials .. ... . 663 

Report on examination of customs business in the district of Boston.. 101 

Ordered to investigate appraisements and classification of imported merchandise at the 

several ports ... 63 

Commissioner of Customs : 

Recommendation that his office be graded equal to that of the Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue. 546 

Statement as to the incompleteness of his records. . 282, 285 

Transmits statement of all payments for salary and expenses to persons employed as spec¬ 
ial agents from 1860 to 1869 .. . 285 

Commission to investigate condition of customs service: 

Appointed. 63 

Reports concerning customs affairs at Boston. 112,122 

Reports concerning the enforcement of regulations governing the delivery of examination 

packages at Boston...'. 119 

Reports concerning “wharf examinations” at New York. 125,126 

Reports concerning proforma invoices at Boston. Ill 

Reports investigation of the methods and personnel of appraiser's office in New York. 122 

Reports concerning personnel of force at Boston . Ill 

Reports concerning uncollected duties at Boston. 119 

Reports examination of customs business in the district of Boston and Charlestown. Ill 

Statements of, concerning classification of sugar for duty by means of the polariscope_ 126 

Recommendations of, as to the treatment of importers who habitually undervalue .. 41 

Statements of, concerning value and classification of foreign wools .1. 126 

Reports in favor of having inspectors at New York under supervision of collector. 31 

Calls attention to need of changes in the customs administration at New York. 31 

Commission to investigate customs business at New York: Reports upon under¬ 
valuations. 89 

Commission to investigate otfice of special agents at New York: 

Appointed. 3 

Makes report.1. 13 

Inquiry into the charges of Moseman as to bribery of officials... 19, 20 

Report upon the case of Bahmann & Hoehn... ... 19 

Statement concerning offers made by parties claiming to have exceptional influence at the 

Treasury Department for the purpose of obtaining money from importers. 21 

Reports concerning practice of special agents signing seizure reports when not making the 

seizure in person. 22 

Report concerning thefts from public stores. 21 

Rinds that the laws of the United States are not always invoked for the sole purpose of 

subserving the public interest. 19 

On the practice of subordinates dividing their moieties with their chiefs.. 22 

Reports that Agents Brackett and Chalker omitted their duty, but finds no evidence of 

corrupt influence. 17 

Statements concerning the case of D. H. Lindsay, importer, subjected to expense and an¬ 
noyance by trumped-up claims. 21 

Reports upon charges made by Wallroth. 12 

Reports on the charges of Hesse, Brackett, Chalker, and others..] * *" io 

Reports that the force of subordinates assigned Brackett was largely in excess of the needs 

of the office. 22 

Reports as to persons carried on the “fraud roll” at New York. 25 

Views concerning the duties of special agents. 23 

Recommends reduction of 50 per cent, of the special agency force at New York.23 

Reports that the special agents’ force at New York should be consolidated under a common 

head. 26 

Reports names of persons employed in the office of special agents at New York whose serv¬ 
ices were unnecessary. 24 25 

Opinion that all permanent employ6s should be officers known to the customs raws."'. .".*. . ’ 25 

Recommends the consolidation of the special agents’ force at New York under one head .. 31 

Reports that charges of official misconduct of special agents have been proved.. . 31 

Reports upon charges preferred against William Hussey. 29 
































































INDEX. 


877 


Page. 

74 

75 


32 

70 

69 

315 

862 

866 


836 

42 

811 

336 

46 

345 

821 

216 


Commission to inquire into reappraisements at IVew York : 

Appointed... 

Report of. . . 

Commission to inquire into undervaluations, damage allowances, and draw- 
backs: * 

Report of. 

Report concerning the basis of values for cotton embroideries and Japanese and oriental 

laces.* 

Recommends immediate correction of errors of practice in regard to pro forma invoices... 

Compaguie Oenerale Trausatlantique : Complaint against Barge-Office system. 

Comparative statement of import duties on wool from 1846 to 1874. 

Compensation, annual, instead of fees, recommended for customs offices. 

Confusion in minds of customs officials as to proper method of fixing dutiable values. (See 
“Values.”) 

Consignment system. 40, 216, 373, 382, 396, 403, 491, 496, 527, 532, 562, 750, 763 

(See also “Consigned Goods.”) 

Concealment of actual foreign market values, a feature of. 40 

Its results. 823 

lias ruined the importing business at New York.. 403, 811 

Has practically destroyed direct importation. 

Denounced by Amei'ican merchants. . 

Responsible for serious evasions of the revenue laws. 

Permits establishment of fictitious values. .:. 

Consignments; Excessive consignments from Europe invited by the facility with which 

undervalued invoices are passed. 

Consigned goods. (See also “Consignment System.”) 

All subject to ad valorem duties, undervalued. 

Discriminatory duty on, recommended. 

Competition between receivers of, determined by their ability to get them most cheaply 

through the custom-house. 

Nearly always undervalued . 336,685 

Undervaluations of.. 347 

Necessity for constant supervision of entries of. 772 

Consigned silks. (See also “Silks.”) 

Not honestly imported. 40 

Consular officers: The question of examinations of shipments by. 341, 348 

364, 377, 384, 392, 407, 412, 417, 420, 426, 431, 435, 440, 444, 449, 456, 459,462, 467, 469,477, 479, 483, 486, 
493, 497, 501, 502, 505, 511, 514, 517, 518, 520, 523, 526, 528, 529, 531, 532, 535, 537, 539, 541, 545, 559, 
564, 566, 570, 572, 575, 578, 581, 583, 587, 588, 591, 604, 631, 644, 657, 658, 665, 668, 672, 675, 688, 691, 
695, 698, 702, 705, 707. 708,710, 712,720, 721,722,730, 734, 736, 737,740,743, 744,747,757,759,760, 
767,770, 774, 778, 791, 792, 801, 808, 811, 814, 817, 819, 820, 821, 827, 829, 834, 837, 840, 848, 851, 855, 861. 
Consular officers : (See also “The question of examination of shipments by,” and “Consu¬ 
lar fees.”) 

Share with notarial agents the fees drawn by the latter for oaths to invoice declarations.. 354 

Their relation to certifications of foreign values. 362, 363, 369, 375, 391, 499, 556,569 

Recommendation that they be required to send frequent reports of prices-current. 645 

Perform their duties with reference to invoices indifferently. 339, 347 

Connivance of, in false valuations.*.. .492, 527, 629 

Consular fees and certification mf invoices.341, 346, 391, 417, 431, 435, 444, 453, 456, 459, 467, 

470. 477, 481, 483, 501, 502, 514, 518, 526, 528, 535, 539, 541, 559, 566, 570, 575, 581, 604, 629, 631, 633, 
645, 657, 658, 665, 672, 675, 683, 691, 717, 728, 735, 736, 737, 740, 741, 747, 760, 767, 771, 796, 801, 803, 
814, 817, 820, 821, 829, 830, 837, 861. 

Might be abolished without danger to the revenue... 

Constable, .Tames M.: Testimony concerning the appointment of merchant appraisers- 

Corbett, Marshall, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Corning, John W., examiner. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Corpus Christ!, Tex., port of: Statement of collectors as to reductions of force possible 

thereat . . 

Correspondence with Justice Blatchford concerning suits for forfeiture. (See also 

“Suits for forfeiture”) . 

Cost of manufactured articles: Estimates of, by experts in country of manufacture not 

reliable... 

Cost of customs service : Reduction in. (See also “Customs service”).-. 

Cost of special agents anti fraud roll services. (See also “Special agents,” and “Eraud 

roll”).- ... 

Cotton embroideries: 

Undervaluations of. (See “Undervaluations.”) 

Recommendation that rate of duty be assessed upon the number of stitches ... 

Cotton yarns: Undervaluations of. (See “Undervaluations.”) 

“ Coverings as an element of cost_338, 389, 404, 420, 439, 444, 447, 461, 466477, 500, 503, 504, 507, 

516, 525, 427. 534, 555, 586, 603, 641, 693. 697, 704, 712, 713, 716, 
721, 726, 734, 737, 738, 742, 762, 788, 791, 810, 835, 843, 859 

Early decision of the question involved, recommended. .. 

Crooker, .1. T., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Crum bin. William examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials... 

Cuuard Steamship Co.: Complaint against Barge Office system. 

Currier, T. E., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Curtis Commission: Reference to the report of.-.. 

Customs Brokers: Always alert to secure advantage to their own clients. 

Customs Court, A : Recommended ..... 

Customs Caws: Special tribunal to try questions in. (See “Tribunal.”) 

Customs officers: 

Blamed for irregularities in matter of drawback regulations, at New York.. 

Eees of: Abolition of all, recommended. 

Laxity in reporting cases of smuggling.- - ---.-. 

More zealous in the interest of customs brokers than to protect the Government. 

‘Values.’’) 


645 

84 

744 

713 

165 

869 

491 

129 

274 


493 


439 

782 

776 

315 

531 

557 

334 

548 


39 

867 

32 

39 


Not clear or harmonious as to fixed dutiable values. (See 

























































878 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Customs organization : Radical change in, recommended. (See also “Customs Service.”) 

Customs service: 

Allegations of bribery or venality in. (See “Bribery.”) * 

List of districts examined by special agents.-. 273 

List of reductions recommended by special agents.» 273 

Reduction in cost of ... 129 

Reductions effected in, since May, 1885 . . 270, 273 

Investigation into general condition of... 109 

Customs taxation: Average rate higher in the United States than elsewhere. 643 

I>. 

Damage allowances..32, 33, 58, 59, 60, 335, 397, 461, 546, 667 

Amount of duties remitted on account of, in 1881, 1882, 1883", 1884. 58 

Claimed upon sound goods. .-. ; .-. 335 

Examining officers allow, without evidence of soundness of goods at time of shipment- 58, 59 

Fraudulent. 33 

Improper. 58, 59, 60, 335, 395 

Investigation into, at New York..... 32, 33 

Oaths as to damage sustained, taken by importers without knowledge of the condition of 

the goods. 90 

Recommendation against present system of. 546 

Damage allowances: 

Recommendation that allowances for damage during voyage of importation he abolished.. 461 

Repeal of law permitting, would be viewed favorably by the business community. 61 

Damage brokers: Endeavor to induce importers to make application for damage allow¬ 
ances on sound goods .... . . 58 

Davis, diaries, deputy collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 669 

Davis, VV. D., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 797 

Decisions of the llepartnieiit: 

Irregular and otherwise. 824 

Erroneous, contradictory, and confusing.. 398, 671 

That selling price of merchandise for American market is market value. 491 

Responsible for failure to levy and collect full rates of duty. . 522, 636 

Declarations to invoices. (See “Consular Certification.”) 

Declarations: Recommended as substitute for oaths in customs matters ... 867 

Dc Forest, William If.: Testimony concerning the appointment of merchant appraisers. 83 

Dickerson, William IS., examiner, Philadelphia : Answer to inquiries to custom officials. 810 
Delivery of merchandise : Recommendation that permits for, be scrutinized by surveyor. 487 

Delay in passing of importations at New York: Complaint of.. 34 

Deputy collectors and inspectors at Cleveland, Ohio: Recommendations as to . 164 

Detroit, port of: Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials... 573 

“ Detective methods” : Suggestion that they should not be resorted to by special agents. 23 


Differences between importers and collectors. (See “Collectors’ Suits.”) 

Dimond, William H., examiner, Boston: Answer to questions to customs officials. 511 

Disposition of appraisers to shield importers from legal consequences of infractions of rev¬ 
enue laws..». . 46 

District attorneys: Indifference on the part of, a cause for delay in the disposition of 

suits against collectors . 446 

District attorney at New York (see, also, “Dorsheimer”): Reply to Secretary’s letter 

concerning the inspection of passengers’ baggage . 330 

Domestic manufacturers : Complaint that they are not oftener selected as merchant 

appraisers . 41 

Dorsheimer, Hon. William, United States district attorney, New York : 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials..1. 610 

Transmits report of cases under customs laws begun and pending at New York. 628 

Dow, Fred. IV., collector, Portland, Me.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 828 

Drawback entries...33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 54, 55, 56,607 

Form of. 37 

Irregularities in the form of. 37 

Difficulty of identifying bags for. 38 

Practice in regard to. 38 

Allowed to be changed after having been sworn to. 36 

D rawback regulations : 

Irregularities in the administration of, at New York. 39 

Department modifications of. 35 

Drawback on bags.. 34, 54 

Drawback on bitiimiuous coal. 56 

Drawback on sugar : 

Greater in certain cases than duty paid on importation. 55 

Presumption of fraud in exportations for. 56 

Regulations in regard to, have not been complied with . 55 

Almost all exported for, in 1884 was the sugar paying highest rate of drawback . 56 

Present rates not based upon accurate knowledge of relative proportion of different 

grades of sugar produced . . 56 

Drawback : Irregularities in the lading of goods exported for .55, 56, 607 

Dubuque, Iowa, port of: Statement of custodian as to the reduction of force possible thereat 172 

“Dummy packages” fraud . 551 

Dumout, .lames S., examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 709 

Dunham, T. II., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 522 

D unkirk, IV. Y.: Statement of collector concerning the reduction of force possible thereat. 172 

D utrher, A. C., examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to costoms officials.. 768 

Duties : 

Have they been levied and collected as the law provides. (See “Rates of Duty.”) 

• High rates of, a temptation to smugglers. (See “Rates of Duty.”) 

Duties never paid on returned bags. 37 

Duties, specific rates of: Have they been fully collected. (See “Rates of Duty.”) 

Dutiable Values. (See “ Values.”) 































































INDEX. 


879 


E. 


asl|»°rt, Me., port ot: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. “j73 

1. iV*’ J ” 5 Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat . 173 

*?ii . ex j lni | ner . Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 821 

01 rVi P or f of: Statement of, as to reduction of force possible thereat __ 175 

, as ?’ -* Po, T 't of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat _ 174 

Fm broideries : Method of appraising, faulty. (See also “Classifications ”). 61 

Ainproiilcries: lundervaluation of (see algo “Undervaluations”). 60 336 

Emigrants’ baggage... I.11“il" 11 661 

Customs laws bear disproportionately upon. 659 

Entries; Undue haste with which they are passed through the custom-house. 334 

* **•? port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 176 

ftureka, ( al., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 177 

Evans, .1. F.— 

Special agent: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 418 

Invasions of customs laws. (See “ Rates of Duty,” “Moiety law,” “Smugglin'’' ” “Under¬ 
valuations.”) 

Evidence as to values furnished by consular officers, not to be implicitly relied on. 702 

As to values: Difficulty of obtaining. .._. 336 

Examiners, responsibility of, for correct returns affecting the dutiable value of goods* 46‘> 464 
465, 466, 469, 479, 491, 495, 496, 497, 500, 502, 504, 508, 510, 513,516, 520, 521, 523, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530* 
532, 534, 536, 555, 563, 566, 578, 581, 583, 586, 587, 590, 630, 642,664, 671, 674, 681, 683, 690, 694, 700, 701, 
/02, 704, 706, 708, 709, 710, 711,712, 715, 716, 718, 719, 720, 722, 727, 731, 734, 735, 738, 739, 741,742, 743 
744, 745, 748, 752, 756, 757, 758, 761, 762, 763, 765, 767, 770, 773, 779,780, 782, 783, 784, 787, 792, 795, 796, 

_ 797, 798, 809, 811, 814, 815, 817, 821, 825, 829, 830, 833, 835, 840, 847, 848, 850, 853, 860. 

Examiners : 


The employment of a sufficient force of, results in saving to the revenue. 151 

Should be changed periodically from one class of goods to another. 339 

Inadequate compensation of, a cause of inefficiency.45, 46, 633, 652, 664. 671 

Salaries. % ... 339 

(See also “Examiners, Responsibility of”.) 

Examination of merchandise: Simplification of the work of. 151 

Examination packages: The delivery of, at Boston. 119 

Examination of passengers’ baggage at IVew York ; 

Letter concerning, to the district attorney at New York. 328 

Scandals concerning (see also “Baggage”). 328 

Experts, Foreign : 

The employment of, for correction of values, recommended. 42 

Unreliability of their information as to values. 

Exportations for benefit of drawback; Honesty and good faith of exporters nrinci- 

pal security against fraud in (see also “ Drawbacks ”).". 55 


F. 


Fairchild, Hon. Cl. S., Assistant Secretary : 

Advises against the assignment of the Barge-Office baggage contract. 293 

Acting Secretary, requests statement from collector at New York as to comparative 

cost of inspecting passengers’ baggage at Barge Office. 306 

Failures to execute the customs laws. (See “Rates of duty, Failures to collect full”.) 
Failure of appraising officers to value goods at cost of production where under¬ 
valued.. 44 

Failure of special agents— 

To report invoices upon which duties were recoverable. 15 

To report violations of the customs laws. 16 

Fall Ki ver, Hass., port of— 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 178 


False dutiable values, appraisers’ reports of, to the collectors_361, 368, 374, 375,388, 404, 417,419, 

424, 455, 462, 465, 469, 496, 501, 504, 509, 510, 516, 534, 538, 554, 568, 573, 603, 604, 629, 635, 650, 656,664, 
687, 696, 702, 726, 802, 817, 824, 826, 833, 850, 860. 

False returns of values, to the collectors (see also “ Values”). .362, 369, 375, 444, 445, 477, 511, 517, 520, 


529, 541, 554, 556, 568, 574, 604, 631, 635, 687, 703, 711, 713, 720, 727, 730, 732, 759, 770, 789, 800, 834, 851, 

Fenton, A. 1>., examiner, New York: Answers to inquiries to customs officials. 731, 759 

Fernandina, Fla.,port of: Statement of collector as toreduction of force possible thereat.. 179 
Fellmau, John K., assistant appraiser, Baltimore, Md.: Answer to inquiries to customs 

officials .,... 465 

Fisher, A. J., examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 822 

Fitch, C. G,, examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 518 

Fitch, John A., deputy collector, Chicago: Answers to inquiries to customs officials. 549 

Flagler, Benjamin, collector, Suspension Bridge, N. Y.: Answers to inquiries to customs 

officials. 854 

Form of drawback entries. 37 

Under modified regulations. 38 

“ For further consideration”: 

The practice of recalling invoices.. 51 

Rapid growth of practice of recalling invoices. 51 

Abuse of the practice of recalling invoices.,. 51 

Foreign experts employed for the correction of values. 42 

Foreign Governments : Possibility of their making complaint should delays in shipments 

result from consular examinations.479, 545, 559, 604, 605, 683, 688, 734, 744, 747, 758, 760, 778, 791, 792. 

808, 814, 834, 837, 861 

Foskct, I>. IS. C., examiner, N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 764 

Frauds in weighing at New York. (See also “ Weighing”) . 637 

Frauds on the customs revenue chiefly confined to New York. 549 

Frauds— 

Successfully carried on under pro forma invoice system. 66, 67 

Induced by present practices in regard to drawback entries on bags for export. 38 

Presumption of, in the exportation of sugar for drawback. 57 























































880 


INDEX. 


“Fraud roll ”— 

Memorandum concerning. 

Annual cost of. 

Employes. List of, in service December, 1885 . 

Estimate of cost of present force. 

Service. Reduction in cost of.. 

Persons carried on it, at New York, wbo were not qualified. 

Free of duty : Examination of merchandise entered as, on wharf at New York.- 

French, IIou. II. F., Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Reserves consideration ot 
baggage contract (Barge Office) for his successor. 

G. 

Galena, III., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat. 

Galveston, Tex., port of: 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 

Port of: Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials... 

Gardinicr, CL, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials .- 

General appraisers: Aboard of, suggested in connection with disposition of collectors 

suits.«..-.-; 

Georgetown, 1>. 1'., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possiole thereat 

Gibb, John: Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers . 

Gilfoil, James, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Gill, Howard CL, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 

Gilbert, James II., deputy collector: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Glassware: Undervaluation of. 

Glore, W. S., examiner, Boston : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Gloucester, Hass., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 

GIo* es: Undervaluation of...-. 

Goldsborough, Henry II., appraiser, Baltimore: Answer to inquiries to special agents . 

Goods: Held by customs authorities without furnishing reason for their action. 

Government experts (foreign) : 

Reports of, as to valuations.-. 

How the value of their reports may be increased ... 

Relative importance of their statements as to foreign market values . 

Graham, Hilaries K., naval officer, New York : Report on Barge Office. 

Granulated rice: The dutiable value of. 

Green, John P., examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Green, F. CL, deputy collector, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Guion, A. S., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

II. 

Hall, Daniel, naval officer, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. . 

II am, Hilaries II., appraiser, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Hartman, Hharles F., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials- 

II aviland, Henry, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Hay, Frank, assistant appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Heddcn, Edward E., collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Hepburn, Peter A., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Hesse, Oscar : 

Charges of irregularities on the part of special agents at New York. 

Exonerates Brackett, in his testimony. 

Hey I, E ewis, naval officer, Philadelphia: Auswer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Hi I born. Samuel G., United States district attorney, San Francisco: Answer to inquiries 

to customs officials... 

Hinds, II. II., special agent— 

Ordered to investigate appraisements and classification of embroidered merchandise at the 

several ports. 

Reports on examination of customs business in the district of Boston. 

New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials ... 

II itt, John, special deputy collector, Chicago, Ill.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 
Hollywood, Andrew, examiner, San Francisco: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Honeywell, E., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

“ Home valuation as a remedy for undervaluation. 

II oultou, Me., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat_ 

Hoyt, IV. B., examiner, San Francisco : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Hoyt, William S., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

II tickcl, B., deputy collector, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Massey, Inspector: His record in the service... 


I. 

Immediate transportation of merchandise: Suggestions as to. 

Importers— 

Complain of passage of grossly undervalued merchandise notwithstanding proof given cus¬ 
toms officers.. 

Excluded from business by undervaluations. 

Undervaluations by. (See “Undervaluations.”) 

Improper classification of dutiable articles. (See “Classifications.”) 

Indianola, Tex., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat 
Informers— 

Their fees (see, also, “Moiety Act”). 

Find it more profitable to treat with guilty parties than with the Government. 

Inquiries to customs officials— 

lu respect to rates of duty and difference between importers and collectors (see “Rates of 

Duty”, and “Differences between Importer and Collector”) .... 

As to verification of invoiced measurements of textile fabrics (see “Textile Fabrics”)_ 


Page. 

286 

274 

286 

286 

274 

25 

125 

292 


178 

179 
278 
740 

810 

179 
83 

748 

718 

548 

336 

521 

180 
336 
453 

18 

217 

217 

217 

299 

609 

723 

547 


485 

549 

742 

744 

689 

584 

765 

9,11 
10 
869 

842 


63 

101 

371 

542 

846 

722 

653 

181 

849 

739 

802 

30 


676 


33 

373 


182 

341 

341 


331 

331 

























































INDEX. 881 

. . Page. 

Inquiries to customs officials—Continued. 

As to collusions between persons making entry and the customs officials (“see Collusions”). 331 

As to failures to enforce revenue law at Atlantic ports outside of New York (see “Pates 

of Duty”). 334 

As to payment of money by passengers to inspectors of baggage (see “Baggage”). 333 

As to decisions of appraising department respecting dutiable value (see “Values”). 333 

As to the several rates of duty on wool since 1860 (see “ Wool”)... 333 

As to verification by American consuls of invoiced values of articles shipped from large 

American consular districts (see “Consular Officers, Examination of Shipments”). 333 

As to whether change from ad valorem to specific rates would benefit the revenue (see 

“Specific and ad valorem rates of duty”). 333 

As to responsibility for failure to collect full amounts of duties (see “ Appraisers and Ex¬ 
aminers”).. j . 333 

As to foreign Governments complaining of delays growing out of examination of invoices 

by American consuls (see “ Foreign Governments”) ... ... 333 

As to failure to punish customs officials and others concerned in false returns of dutiable 

values (see “ Punishment”). 334 

As to whether high rates of duty are incentives to smuggling and dishonest shipments 

(see “ Kates of Duty”). .. 334 

As to false dutiable values reported by appraisers (see “ Values”)_,. 332 

As to collectors’ suits pending in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore (see “Collectors’ 

Suits”). 332 

As to necessity for new tribunal to try taxation questions (see “Tribunal”). 332 

As to undervaluations (see “Undervaluations”). 332 

As to whether existing law in relation to payment of interest on collectors’ suits needs 

amendment (see “ Interest”) .. . 332 

As to whether there is any confusion or conflict of opinion in appraiser’s department 

respecting dutiable values, (see “Values”). 332 

Inquiries (additional) to Special Agents Martin and Tingle: 

As to fees charged in Great Britain for invoice declarations ... .. . 343 

As to date and text of conventional agreement as to oaths to invoice declarations. 348 

As to undervaluations of silks. 343 

As to difference between “ price paid” and “ dutiable value”. 343 

As to ascertainment of dutiable value . 343 

As to articles upon which full rate of duty has not been levied. 342, 343 

Whether perjury committed in making oath before British officials as to invoices is subject 

to prosecution. 343 

Inquiries to United States district attorney at IVcw York as to collectors’ suits 

thereat. 627 

Intent to defraud the revenue: The question of furnishing proof of, in forfeiture 

cases. . 437, 545, 584, 591, 603, 869, 870 

Interest as a part of the damages and cost in collectors’ suits. .446, 454,468, 476, 

552, 568, 578, 586, 589, 613, 640, 656, 741, 769, 802, 805, 810, 858 

Investigation of special agents at New York. 3 

Investigation by special agents into the general condition of the customs service.100-128 

Jnto reappraisements at New York.. * 74 

Into undervaluation, damage allowances, and drawbacks at the port of New York. 40 

Invoices: 

Consular certification of. (See “ Consular Officers”). 417 

Number passing through appraiser’s office at New York yearly . 339 

Pro forma. (See “Pro forma invoice”). 

Irregularities— 

In consular certification of invoices . 633 

In the administration of the drawback regulations at New York. . 39 

In the form of drawback entries. 37 

In the exportation of sugar for drawback. 55 

In the examination of goods for damage allowances ... 58, 59 

In regard to pro forma invoices. 66, 67, 68, 69, 111 

In the cartage at New York. 66 


J. 


Jackson, It. II.: His connection with the “ glass-eye case ” .- . 

Jacobs, William C., examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials -- 

James, Charles II., special agent, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials 

Jay Commission : .Reference to work of .335, 552, 557, 558, 560, 

Jerome, T. IF., examiner. San Francisco: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Jervey, Theo. II. , collector, Charleston, S. C.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. ... 
Jewell, William J., deputy collector, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials... 

Jewett, CJeorge W., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Johnson, F. F., collector, Savannah, Ga. : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Jonas, B. F., collector, New Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 

Jones, SI. R., deputy collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Jones, J. W., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 

Jones, William A., deputy collector, New York : Answers to inquiries to customs officials. 
Joslin, CJeorgc C., assistant appraiser, Boston, Mass.: Answer to inquiries to customs 

officials.... 

Jury: Special, recommended for the trial of collectors’ suits. 


19 
759 
800 
561,607 
•848 
542 
• 546 

791 
853 
580 
668 
729 
669 

495 
437, 544 


K. 


Kansas City, Mo., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat.. 183 

Kennebiink, Me., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 184 

Kent, William, assistant appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 684 
Kent, William, assistant appraiser: Testimony concerning the selection of merchant ap¬ 
praiser. 























































882 


INDEX. 


Kcmocliaii, Henry I*., naval officer, New Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs offi¬ 
cials . - - -. 

Kerr, A. J., examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 

Kelclium, A. I*., ex-appraiser of the port of New York : Testimony concerning the selection 

of merchant appraiser.. ------ ..**.*,. 

Keyes, George, examiner, Boston, Mass.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Key West, Fla., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat... 
Knode, Samuel, examiner, Baltimore: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 


Page. 

583 

819 

87 

506 

184 

463 


F. 


Faces, undervaluation of (see. also, 1 ‘ Undervaluation ”)...- -.-. 336 

Fa Crosse, Wis., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat.. 185 

Lamb, William M., examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials- 185 

Fapp, IS. II., special agent: Report on examination of customs business in the district of 

Boston. ...--;. 101 

Fapp, C. II., special agent, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials............ 30 

Fapp, Charles IIspecial agent: Ordered to investigate appraisements and classification 

of embroidered merchandise at the several ports. . . 63 

Lawrence, .Sola it IS., inspector: His connection with the payment of money by the Bar¬ 
bour Flax Spinning Company to prevent publicity to a fraudulent entry of goods. 21 

Lawrence, .Bohn IS., inspector: Alleged attempt on his part to induce other persons to 

assist in smuggling precious stones into the United States.. . 21 

Leary. .1. T., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 516 

Feckie, William H., examiner, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 565 

Lee, Daniel W., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials... 705 

Lcnnard, A. II., district attorney, New Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 584 

Fielanal, George H., surveyor, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials- 808 

Feseur, E. C., examiuer, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.... 762 

Fevl, Hen jam in J., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 787 

Finthicum, John F., appraiser, Baltimore: Answers to inquiries to customs officials- 445 

Fivingston, William j., collector, Detroit: Answer to inquiries to customs officials-- 573 

Lockwood, II. A., Deputy Commissioner Customs, Washington: Answer to inquiries to 

customs officials. 865 

Fouisville, Ky., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat... 186 

Fuby, John ©., collector, Brownsville, Tex.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 536 


M. 


Maehias, Me., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 186 

Malloy, A. G., collector, Galveston, Tex.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials -... 578 

Manning, Hon. Daniel: 

Correspondence with Justice Blatchford as to suits for forfeiture . 869 

Directions to customs officials to report as to possible reduction of force.. 129 

Directs an investigation into reappraisements at New York. 74 

Instructions relative to reappraisements. 98 

Directs the vigilant enforcement of the laws relating to the inspection of baggage..• 328 

Letter to United States district attorney at New York on the scandals concerning the 

examination of passengers’ baggage at New York. 328 

Letter to collector of customs at New York on the complaints concerning the Barge 

Office. 263 

Directing continuance of inquiry as to Barge Office. 300 

Declines to approve the assignment of the Barge Office contract. 293 

Letter to the collector at New York, declining to approve the transfer of the baggage-trans¬ 
portation contract. . . 293 

Marblehead, Mass., port of; Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat 187 
Market value : 

Difficulty of establishing value of consigned goods.. 491 

What constitutes. (See also “ Values”). 491 

Martin, F. G., special agent: 

Reply to inquiries to customs officials. 334 

Statement as to the origin and cost of special agent’s force. 274, 282 

Marquette, Mich., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat 188 

xMaxwell, W. M., examiner, New Y r ork : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 757 

McComas, George M., deputy collector at Baltimore: Answers to inquiries to customs 

officials.,. . 443 

McL'ue, Hon. A., Solicitor of the Treasury: Opinion with respect to shipment of passengers’ 

baggage. 315 

McLnlloeh, Hon. Hugh: 

Inquiry as to special agent’s office at New York. 3, 24 

Letter to commission of investigation of special agents at New York. 24 

Transmits to investigating committee charges against William Hussey. 26, 28 

Directing special agents to inquire into undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances, 

drawbacks, and such other irregular practices .. 33 

Directs investigation of statements of Deputy Collector Bartram reflecting upon officers of 

the Department ..’. 4 f 5 

McMullen, Fcwis, appraiser, New York: 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 629 

Answer to additional inquiries as to customs matters.. 633 

McViear, James: Testimony concerning the appointment of merchant appraisers. 82 

Memphis, Trim., port of: Statem-nt of surveyor concerning a reduction of force thereat. 189 

Merchant appraisers : 

Recommendations as to selection of. 450 457 

Importers sitting as, who have themselves failed to pay full amounts of duty on goods sim¬ 
ilar to those that are the subject of the reappraisement . J . 491 





























































INDEX. 


883 


Merchant appraisers—Continued. 

Recommendation that they be abolished. 847 

Selection of, limited to domestic manufacturers and receivers of consigned goods.. 216 

Testimony concerning the selection of. 78 

Members of consignment firms who appear habitually as appellants should be excluded 

from selection as. 76 

Recommendation that the present method of selection of, should be continued. 75 

Importance of the selection of competent and fair-minded merchants to act on reappraise¬ 
ments... 76 

Complaint that domestic manufacturers are usually appointed for reappraisement of im¬ 
ported goods .. 74 

Report of special agents concerning appointment of, at port of New York. 75 

Special agents report that domestic manufacturers have not usually been appointed mer¬ 
chant appraisers on imported goods.... 44, 75 

Statement that merchants acting as such, suffer at the hands of commission houses. 43 

The selection of. 74 

Not unusual for them to be known to appealing parties. 45 

Known to declare what their decisions would be before a hearing was had. .. 45 

Propriety of selecting domestic manufacturers as .. 76 

Merchants who furnish customs officials with statements as to valuations, boycotted by 

commission houses..'. 43 

Forbidden by agents of foreign shippers to disclose prices paid for goods . 42 

Merchandise: Value of, examined in the appraiser’s department. New York .. 289 

Meredith Commission : Reference to the work of. 550 

Middletown. Conn., portof: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 189 
Milwaukee, Wis., portof: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 190 

Mitchell, John Q., appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Mobile, Ala.: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 191 

Mobile, Ala.: portof: Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials. 579 

Modification of drawback regulations by the Department. 35 

“Moiety” law. 

Has the repeal of the, encouraged evasions of the customs laws ?.340, 348, 363, 373, 377, 383, 388, 

390, 391, 406, 410, 420, 430, 435, 437, 449, 456, 477, 493, 504, 523, 527, 535, 541, 545, 557, 558, 575, 588, 591, 
604, 630, 635, 657, 658, 675, 688, 695, 698, 704, 728, 740, 767, 770, 817, 826, 829, 832, 837, 847. 853, 861, 869 
(See, also, “Evasions of the Customs Laws”.) 


Its repeal gave rise to the “ consignment” system . 340 

Monroe, R. A., deputy collector, Boston : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 479 

Moore, Daniel «!., assistant appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials 688 

Morse, TTieo. D., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 776 

Morton, JT. M., surveyor, San Francisco : Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 841 

Moseman, Inspector: 

His statement that he shared money obtained from the smuggling importers with Captain 

Brackett... .. 19 

His connection with the “ glass-eye case ”.:... 19 

Commission of investigation finds his statements about sharing money with Brackett to 

be true. . .. . 20 

His statement concerning receipt of money from Barbour Flax-Spinning Company as a 

bribe to give no publicity to their attempts to violate revenue laws. 21 


X. 


Naill, Henry C., surveyor, Baltimore, Md.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Nantucket, Maws., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 
Nashville, Tenii., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat. 

Nason, JTohu W., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 

Natchez, Miss., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat ... 
Naval officer at New York; 

Reports obstacles to his free communication with the appraiser. . 

Differences between collector and .. 

Alleged general tendency to degrade that officer... 

Nevin, D. A., special agent, New Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs officials - 

Newark, N. J.. port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

New Redford, Mass., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat- 

Newburyport, Mass., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

New Haven, Conn., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

New Couflon, Conn., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

New Orleans, Ca., port of: 

Answer of officials to inquiries to customs officials. 

Collector’s suits at. 

Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of naval officer as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of special deputy collector as to reduction of force thereat.. 

Newport News, Va., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

Newport, R. I., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

New York, N. "IT., port of: 

Collector’s suits at. 

Answer of officials to inquiries to customs officials. 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of the superintendent as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of deputy collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of deputy collectors as to reduction of force thereat.204, 205, 

Statement of chief liquidating clerk as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of cashier as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of auditor as to reduction of force thereat ... 

Statement of cashier as to reduction of force thereat. 


458 

192 

193 
501 
193 

648 
636 

649 
367 

193 

194 
194 

195,196 

197 

580 

584 

200 

200 

198 

199 
201 
201 

610 

584 

203 

203 

204 
206, 207 

206 

208 

208 

208 




































































884 


INDEX. 


New York, N. Y., port of—Continued. 

Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force thereat. 

Statement of naval officer as to reduction of force thereat . 

Statement of general appraiser as to reduction of force thereat. 

Examination of passengers’baggage at. (See “Baggage.”) 

The “ Barge Office” investigation and results. (See “ Barge Office. ) 
Collectors’ suits at. (See “Collectors’ suits.”) 

Inspection service at New York... 

Reduction of agency force at, recommended. 

(See, also, “Commission of investigation at.”) 

Norfolk, Va„ port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat 
Nowak, .1. A., examiner, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials .. 

O. 


Page. 

209,212 

213 

215 


31 


218 

363 


Oaths; 

As to values of shipments. 

Substitution of declarations for, recommended.-.-.- - -. 

Oaths, custom-house; Levity with which they are regarded by the importing public. 631 

Oaths to invoice declarations (see also “Declarations”).341,346,347,348,350,352,353,354, 

358, 391, 604 

Amounts paid for, exceeds salaries of consuls. 358 

In Great Britain. 346 

Prosecution for perjury in making. 347, 350 

Amounts paid for.352, 353 

Inquiry as to. 352 

Consuiar officers sharing in fees for (see, also, “Consular Officers”). 354 

Declarations—to whom fee for, is paid.348, 354 

Fee charged for.- - -. 348 

Origin of the custom of taking, in Great Britain.. 348 

Ogdensburgh, N. Y., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 219 

Oil painting and statuary: Reduction of rates of duty are recommended. 82i 

Oleate of soda or, “ Alizarine assistant:” Assessment of duty upon. 34 

Omaha, Nebr., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction thereat. 219 

Oswego, N. Y., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 22o 

Overvaluations at the port of Baltimore. 444 


P. 


Packages. Representative, not sent to the public stores, as the law provides.- 607 

Passengers’ baggage, examination of, at New York (see also “Baggage of Passengers,” 

and “ Barge Office ”). 328 

" Scandals concerning the inspection of. 328 

Correspondence of the Secretary of the Treasury with collector and United States attor¬ 
ney at New York, regarding .- -. 328-330 

Pearson, Adoniram 3 ., examiner. N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 784 

Penalty limit: Reluctance of appraisers to advance values to. . 46, 417 

Pensacola, Fla., yjort of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 224 

Perham, Sidney, assistant appraiser, Portland, Me.: Answer to inquiries to customs offi¬ 
cials . . 830 

Perjury in making oath to invoice dechvrations. Can it be punished ?.. 347, 350 

Perry, Andrew J.: 

Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers. 84 

General appraiser, New York. Statement of, concerning undervaluations, consignments, 

reappraisements, values, &c . 216 

Personal effects ; Limitation of the free importation of, recommended. 866 

Perth Amboy, N. J., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible at- 225 

Philadelphia, port of: 

Answer of officials to inquiries to custom officials . 800 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat . .. 225 

Statement of naval officer as to reduction of force thereat. . 226 

Statement of appraiser as to reduction of force thereat . 228 

Pickhardt & Kutfratf: Complaint of delay in the passing of importations. 34 

Pinkliam, C. II., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 509 

Pittsburgh, Pa., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force thereat. 230 

Plattsburg, N. Y., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat . 230 

Polariscope: Classification of sugar for duty by means of.. . 126 

Polariscopic tests for sugar.. 507 

Port Huron, port of: 

Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials.. 828 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 234 

Portland, Me., port of: 

Answer of officials to inquiries to customs officials. 828 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 234 

Statement of appraiser as to reduction of force thereat. 238 

Portland, Oreg., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.. 238 

Portsmouth, N. II., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 239 

Port Townsend, port of: 

Answer of officials to inquiries to customs officials. 831 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat... 240 

Potter, W. E., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 755 

Power, James !>., special agent, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials_ 409 

Pratt, E. W., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 712 

Professional wardrobes: Frauds in the passing of, at New York. 728 

Pro forma invoices. .64,65,06,67,69,111,591,675,824 

Abuses resulting therefrom. 64 

Abuses resulting therefrom have their origin in the opinion of the Attorney-General (Oc¬ 
tober 4, 1878). 65 

Carelessness in respect to valuations for entry under, at Boston. . 111 

Improper and fraudulent use of.. . 66 

Importers make entries by, for the purpose of experimenting with appraisers. 675 




































































INDEX. 


885 


Page. 


69 

66 

591 

67 

64 


I*ro forma, invoices—Continued. 

Interests of the revenue put in jeopardy by. 

Their advantage to the shipper who consigns his goods below their market value. 

The number of, increased by passage of “ Anti-Moiety law ”. 

Undervaluations and frauds successfully carried on under. 

Report of Commissioner upon... 

Price paid vs. Cost of— 

Difference between, in determining dutiable values. 338, 347 

Protests and appeals : Law and regulations iu regard to.602, 612, 629, 638, 656, 768,’858 

Providence, R. I., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible 

thereat. . 243 

Public cartage of merchandise: Irregularities in.. 606 

(See also “ Cartage.’’) 

Punishment of persons engaged in violations of the revenue laws: Failure to secure.365,370, 

381, 384, 394, 413, 421, 428, 455, 487, 498, 506, 528, 546, 561, 577, 592, 605, 631, 705, 865 

R. 

Rates of duty: 

Are high rates of duty productive of evasions of the revenue laws ? .331, 342, 344, 365, 370, 380, 

384, 394, 413, 421, 428, 432, 445, 467, 472, 477, 484, 488, 494, 498, 503, 506, 508, 511, 514. 517, 520, 524, 528, 
529, 535, 539, 541, 545, 560, 570, 572, 577, 578, 592, 605, 631, 644, 646, 659, 665, 688, 707, 730, 768, 781, 803, 
815, 821, 826, 830, 817, 848, 854, 864. 

Failure to collect full .335, 360, 367, 371, 381, 385, 386, 395, 402, 407, 409, 416, 419, 422, 424, 429, 434, 438, 

489, 490, 495, 507, 508, 522, 527, 540, 543, 547, 549, 553, 567, 589, 600, 601, 603, 629, 635, 636, 655, 663, 679, 
^ 684, 703, 709, 710, 712, 716, 719, 722, 725, 732, 749, 754, 766, 793, 817, 822, 823, 835, 839. 

Insufficient assessment of, often occurs without detection.. 334 

Recommendation of simplification of method of assessing. 483 

Reappraising boards : Functions of. 98 

Reappraise meats.43, 44, 45, 53, 74, 76, 98, 99, 217, 382, 388, 398, 491, 633, 657, 680, 823, 835 

Practical result of present system of. 45 

Original finding often modified upon protest and reargument by importer. 45 

Irregularities in...45,337, 750 

Return to old methods of, recommended. 45 

Failures of appraisers to sustain action of examiners in advancing invoices. 45 

Recommendation that succeeding new appraisements should not be made to correspond with. 53 

Custom-house brokers and attorneys at law not entitled to appear before appraisers on be¬ 
half of importers in reappraisements... 99 

Statement of witnesses should be taken in the presence of official persons only. 99 

Information as to values obtained in reappraisements by appraising officers not public 

property. 99 

No authority for the public examination of witnesses called bj T appraisers. 98 

Concerning practice of, at Hew York. 98 

The. law of, explained. 98 

Instructions ot Secretary to United States general appraiser, relative to. 98 

No justification for treating such as trials in courts of law. 98 

Disinclination of reappraising boards to advance values to “ penalty limits ”. 76 

Difficult y of arriving at proper conclusions in regard to. 76 

Want of uniformity in. 651 

Boycotting of merchants who give honest evidence to appraisers as to undervaluation. 43 

The results of the present system of. 217 

The anomaly presented by the present system of. 217 

Difficulty in getting known honest persons as merchant appraisers. 216 

Statement concerning, by General Appraiser Perry, New York. 216 

Investigation into, directed by Secretary of the Treasury.. 74 

Recall of invoices “for further consideration ”.51, 52, 53, 54 

Danger of the practice as at present carried on. 54 

Invoices should not be recalled or values reduced upon examination of samples. 53 

Reduction in cost of customs service. .129, 270, 273 

Directions to customs officials to report concerning possible. 

Refund of duties; Recommendation that it be reduced to a minimum in all cases. 

Reniscn, A. O., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Reports of commissions. (See “Commissions.”) 

Returned bags : No duties ever paid thereon. 

Returns of examination and lading of exported bags: Irregularities in. 

Revenue laws ; Offenses against, encouraged by Anti-Moiety act. (See “Moiety act.”) 

Rhodes, 8. W. C., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Richardson, R.: Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers. 

Richmond, Va., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 244 

Rider, Ilenry JR., examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 734 

Rigney, Robert, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. nno 

Robertson, William II., collector of the port of New York: 

Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers. 

Transmits communication from J. H. Starin relative to Barge Office. 

Additional report concerning the Barge Office. 

States reasons why there should not be an extended inquiry into the management of the 

Barge Office at New York . 

Letter to lion. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury, in respect to the pro forma 

invoice system as a danger to the revenue. 

Robinson, j. If., Acting Solicitor of the Treasury : Refuses to approve the transfer of the 

Barge Office baggage contract.. 

Rochester, IV. Y.: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat . 

Rockwell, Camden O., deputy collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs 


129 

865 

758 


37 

36 

519 

85 


778 

87 

303 

301 

294 

594 

292 

244 


officials.- - , . , ..... 

Root, U. 8. Attorney : His statement to the special agents regarding laxity on the part of 

the customs officers...-.- - ; -- • ..-.- -.-.-. 

Calls attention of special agents to collusions between customs officers and smugglers - 

Rowe, Edward, assistant appraiser,JNew York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 


676 

32 

32 

699 































































886 


INDEX. 


s. 

i *<l IT" 

Saco, TI c., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. 245 

Sag If arbor, IV. IT., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat- 246 

Salem, Manx., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat- 246 

Sample Bureau at Washington: Recommendation of the establishing of a... 552 

Sampson, J^ohn A., examiner, San Francisco: Answer to inquiries to customs officials — 852 

San Diego, C'al., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.. 247 

Sandusky, Ohio, port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat. .. 248 

San Francisco. Cal., port of: 

Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials. 852 

Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat . 249 

Statement of naval officer as to reduction of force possible thereat.-. 251 

Sanger, George B. t United States district attorney, Boston: Answer to circular to customs 

officials. ... ... .... 473 

Saunders, T. B., deputy commissioner of navigation, Washington: Answer to inquiries 

to customs officials . .. .-. 857 

Savannah, Ga., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat... 251 

Seaman, George C. T., examiner, New York: Answers to inquiries to customs officers.. 779 

Secretary of the Treasury. (See “Manning. Hon. Daniel.'’) 

Seizures ; 

Additional duties accepted in lieu of. 41 

Waiving of, by collectors.... 41 

Shaw, W. III., examiner, Baltimore: Answers to inquiries to customs officials. 463 

Sherer, Edward, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 754 

Sherer, John A,, examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. ... 780 

Shipman, Judge, reflects upon the management of the office of special agents at New York. 3 

Shipments of merchandise for drawback entry : Irregularities in . 36 

Allowed upon inspection orders in advance of entry. 36 

Silks; 

Cannot be bought for cash in foreign markets for importation into the United States. 40 

Estimate of amount of undervaluation of.;. 338 

Failure to collect the duty (see also “Rates of Duty”). 490 

Merchandise composed in part of, improperly entered. 147 

No importations except upon consignment . 216 

Sold in this country by manufacturers’ agents below cost price to American merchants... 549 

Undervaluations of.336, 338, 410, 497, 525, 545, 568, 635, 825, 864 

Simplification of work in the examination of merchandise. 151 

Sinuott, R., surveyor, New Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 582 

Sitka, Alaska, port of: Statement of collector as to the reduction of force possible thereat. 258 

Smalley, U. B., collector, Burlington, Yt.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 540 

Smith, A. I-i., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials . 720 

Smith, C aleb A., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 498 

Smith, Rodney, examiner, N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 702 

Smuggling : (see also “Rates of Duty”).395, 397, 538 

Of cigars and mescal. 538 

Loose definition of wearing apparel for free entry a cause of.. 488 

Steamship companies assert that their efforts to stop smuggling by their employes are not 

supported by customs officers. 30 

Solicitor of the Treasury: 

Starin’s protest against the termination of his contract referred to the.. 324 

Opinion in regard to the termination of the Barge-Office contract . 326 

Soule, Charles S., examiner, Boston : Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 494 

Southworth, Henry C., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials... 743 
Spaulding, O. C., special agent, San Francisco: 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials.•-. 418 

Appointed member of commission to investigate reappraisements at New York . 74 

Directed to investigate undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances, drawbacks, and 

other irregularities practiced at the port of Now York.. 33 

Suggests an investigation into undervaluations, damage, allowances, and drawbacks. 32 

Spaulding, Ticlicuor, and Tingle, special agents, appointed a commission to investigate 

special agents at New York. 3 

Special agents: 

How the service was established. 274 

Force established by act of 1799 . 274 

Highest number of persons employed as, at one time. 282 

Annual cost of. 274 

Payments for salary and expenses to persons employed as, from 1860 to 1869 . 285 

Salaries and expenses of, from 1861 to 1869. . 282 

Statements of all payments to persons employed as, from 1869 to 1885 . 286 

Annual expenses of force for the past five years. 286 

Number and cost of, in 1870. 274 

Number, compensation, and expenses from 1871 to 1885 .. 278 

Names, locations, expenses, and allowances of, during the fiscal year ending June 30,1885. 280 

Name, date of payment, station, salary, expenses, &c., of, during fiscal year 1885. 280 

List of, in service December, 1885 ...'. 286 

Estimated cost of present force... 286 

Discrepancies between statement of Commissioner of Customs as to, and the records of 

the appointment division.*. 284 

List of, does not include persons appointed temporarily during the war of the rebellion 

to serve as collectors, &c., in the South.J. 284 

Additional statement concerning the payment, number, compensation, and allowances of. 282 

Reduction in cost of. 274 

Since 1860 have reported directly to the Department.279 

Department clerks detailed as.284 

Paid from various appropriations. .!!!!!!!!!!!! 282 

Employed on the frontier to prevent smuggling .283 

Expenses of, sometimes larger than the salaries . .......... 283 

Appointed for short terms.283 































































INDEX 


887 


Special agents—Continued. g 

Serve as cotton agents. . 280 

« As detectives in customs cases. 593 

Serve as custodians of public property. 2K3 

Persons appointed as, without definite compensation. 284 

Charges that false reports as to customs business have been made by. ... ...* 681 

Charge that they influence advancement of values without warrant‘of fact. . 687 

’■miplaint of the manner in which special agents and other customs officers have treated 

'' formation given them respecting undervaluations. 32, 33 

P?'jOms districts examined aud reductions recommended by. 273 

°ce furnished by, not to be implicitly relied on.!. 702,726 

York, failures to report invoices upon which duties were recoverable. 15 

nvestijration into undervaluations, damage, allowances, and drawback. 32 

investigation by, into general condition of the customs service. 100 

instruetj [ on3 f 0 agents as to examining condition of customs service .. 

inportai ce G f having them act in constaut support of the examiners . 

t.narge ti )a t they make groundless claims against importers. 

Upinion i„ customs matters said to be unreliable... . 

‘ „® ni . ei it that the venality and blackmailing proclivities of special agents made the 

o, Aloiety” act unpopular .. 

should n 0 t resort to detective methods . . 

Take extreme views as a rule... 

pecial Agents, toiuniis§ion*< of: 

Report on damage allowances. 57 , £ 9 , 60 

Recommend repeal of law permitting allowances for damage. 

Report on undervaluation of embroideries. 

Report upon drawback on bags. 

Recommend returning to old methods of reappraisements. 

Report upon practice of recalling invoices “ for further consideration”. 

Recommends that importer should not be permitted to withdraw invoices pending reap 

praisement without consent of the Secretary of the Treasury.. 

Report upon drawback on coal... 56, 77 

Report upon exportations of sugar for drawback. 55, 56 

Report on drawbacks upon exported books. 

Report on undervaluation . 

Special Attorneys: Recommendation for the appointment of, for duty in trial of collectors’ 

suits. 490 

Special Inspectors: 

List of, in service December, 1885. 286 

Estimate of cost of present force.. 286 

Special Juries : Needed to try suits against collectors. (See also “ Tribunal, A New.”) _ 437 

Speer«- *»»»»« - 1 ~ ■*.. i - ui rates of duty: Relative advantages of, in the collection of the 

revenue.340, 363, 376, 390, 405, 417, 420, 426, 430, 435, 437, 410, 444, 448, 456, 459, 461, 462, 465, 467, 

469, 477, 479, 486, 492, 498, 504, 508, 510, 517, 518, 520, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, 531, 532, 533, 539, 541. 543, 

544, 556, 563, 564, 566, 569, 572, 574, 575, 578, 580, 581, 582, 587, 591, 637, 642, 647, 657, 668 , 674, 683, 687, 

691, 695, 698, 700, 701, 703, 706, 708, 714. 718, 720, 721, 722, 723, 728, 734, 736, 737, 740, 741, 742, 743, 745, 

752, 755, 756, 757, 758, 760, 763, 767, 770, 774, 777, 782, 787, 790, 796, 797, 800, 802, 811, 814, 815, 817, 819, 

821. 825, 830, 834, 836, 840, 817, 848, 851, 854, 855, 859, 860 

Specific rates of duty: 

Recommendations in favor of.42, 46, 437, 440, 444. 448, 456, 459, 461, 462, 465, 467, 469, 477, 479, 486, 

495, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 504, 508, 510, 514, 517, 518, 522, 550, 520, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, 531, 532, 

533, 539, 541, 543, 544, 550, 563, 564, 566, 569, 574, 581, 58 2, 586, 587, 591, 630, 637, 642, 643, 644, 645, 647, 

634, 657, 666 , 674, 677, 683, 706, 714, 718, 720, 721, 722. 72 3, 728, 734, 736, 737, 740, 745, 755, 756, 758, 760, 

774, 777, 782, 787, 790, 796, 797, 800, 802, 814, 815, 817, 82 l, 834, 836, 840, 847, 848, 851 

Recommended as a preventive of bribery. 500 

Specific rates of duty: 

The only successful means of defeating undervaluations. 821, 83 


100 

766 

21 

769 

657 

23 

824 


60 

61 

54 

45 

51 

52 


34 

40 


How they can be evaded. 

Specific invoices: Undervaluation of. 

Starin, . 1 . II. (See Barge Office.) 

Steamship companies assert that their efforts to stop smuggling by their employes are 

not supported by the customs officials. 

Sterling, A., United States district attorney, Baltimore: Answers to inquiries to customs 

officials. . 

Stevens, C. A., assistant appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials ... 

Stonington, Conn., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

Stott, Hilaries E., assistant appraiser: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

St. Hi ouis, port of— 

Answer of surveyor to inquiries to customs officials. 

Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force thereat. 

St. Mary’s, CJa., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

St. Vincent, Minn., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

Sturgcs, I>avid CL, assistant appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs 
officials. 


33 

4 


30 

430 

682 

259 

701 

832 

253 

256 

257 

692 


Sugars: 

Classification of, by use of polariscope. 126,776 

Frauds in the weighing of.. 67 

Irregularities in the testing and weighing of. 396, 3 fi 

Irregularities in the weighing of. 6 7 

Method of sampling, modifications suggested. 22 

Fraud in the sampling of. 71 

The classification of duties upon..' 50 

Complaint of low rates of duty on, at New York.. . 507 

Suits against Collectors (see Collectors' suits) pending in United States courts at Phila¬ 
delphia . 414 

Suits for forfeiture: Correspondence with Justice Blatchford concerning . 869 

Surveyor of Customs: Recommendation that he be authorized to scrutinize permits for 
delivery of merchandise. 484 






























































888 


INDEX. 


Page. 

854 

25* 


816 

201 

46 

331 


Suspension Kridgf - W. Y. ? Port of: 

Answer of Collector to inquiries to customs officials.. . 

Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat. .... 

Swift, John 5.'., Deputy Collector, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

T. 

Taggart, Fraucig M., Examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 

Tapimlitauiiock, l r a„ Port of: Statemeut of Collector as to reduction of force thereat- 

Torifif: Remedial laws needed for the enforcement of.* 

Tests of invoice measurements (see also “Textile fabrics”).** 

Textile fabrics j „„ 

The verification of invoiced measurements of, how managed at the several ports.'ir., ’ 

367, 372. 382, 386, 402, 408, 417, 419, 422, 453, 46G, 468, 477, 479, 485, 489, 495, 496, 521, 524. ™ ]• ^6, 

538, 540, 543,550, 563, 565, 567, 571, 573, 578, 580, 581, 583, 585, 589, 629, G55, 664, 670, 673. 084, bo7 

708 713, 716, 723, 724, 731, 735, 739, 741, 742, 745, 762, 768, 772, 788, 802, 809, 813, 816, 822, 8-8, 830, 832, 
835, 840, 849, 854. rg _. 

Recommendation of more thorough system of invoice measurements of. --•* j 00 ‘-> 

Thefts of merchandise from public stores: Persons suspected of, said to have been proni ott ‘“ 

In the Appraiser’s Department.. -1 

Thomson, William J., Examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs office rs -- 792 

Tieht uor, George t-., Special Agent: 

Appointed member of commission to investigate reappraisemeuts at Xew York .. 74 

Directed to investigate undervaluations, fraudulent damage, allowances, drawbacks, and 

other irregularities practiced at the Port of Xew York. 33 

Suggests an investigation into undervaluations, damage allowances, and drawback . . 32 

Report as to participation of consular officers in fee paid for oaths to invoice declaration .. 356 

Statement as to the origin and cost of Special Agents’ force. ..- 274, 282 

Tichrnoi', Tingle, n»s»l Kpaitlding, Special Agents : Appointed a commission to investi¬ 
gate Special Agents at New York........ 3 

Tlsfijsle, A. If., Special Agent: 

Appointed member of commission to investigate reappraisement at Xew York. 74 

Charges against him by Deputy Collector Bertram. -... . 6 

Directed to investigate undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances, drawbacks, and 

other irregularities practiced at the Port of New York. 33 

Reply to inquiries to customs officials. 334 

Statement concerning obstacles to just appraisements of silks. 5 

Statements as to an understanding among firms receiving consignments, for mutual protec¬ 
tion against advances involving penal duties. 5 

Statemeut concerning merchant appraisers. 4 

Statement regarding undervaluation of silks _____:. 4 

Toledo, Ohio, fi’orf of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force Ate*- .. °62 

TouivinMoii, fi. S., Examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. el7 

Townsend, Charles 18., Examiner, Xew Fork: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 798 

TowiiNemi, W. If., Examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials _ 783 

TraiToit, J. W., Examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 524 

Tran^porlatiois, Cost of: As an element of dutiable value.. 500 

Treloar, Joseph, Chief Clerk, New York: 

Answer to inquiries to customs officials.. 589> 

Answer to additional inquiries to, >m customs matters. 600 

Memorandums to necessity for stringent laws in regard to collection of revenue taxes... 596- 

Letter to Hon. "William Windom, Secretary of the Treasury, as to disputed questions un¬ 
der the tariff laws. 593 

Trillion, X, J., Port of: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat . 263 

Tribujtml, A new : To try suits against Collectors: the necessity for..429,434,437,438, 439, 444,. 

446, 454, 462, 468, 475, 477, 496, 512, 522, 544, 548, 552, 568, 573, 581, 584, 603, 614, 639, 656, 685, 697, 716,. 
725, 741, 766, 769,798, 810. 883, 838, 846, 850, 858. 

Tuckerteii, IV. J., Port of: Statement ofCollector as to reduction of force thereat. 26 


U. 



Undervaluation*.4, 23, 33, 336, 337, 347,348, 362, 368. 369. 371, 372, 373, 375, 382, 383, 387, 388, 389, 

3:7-- .-W—'igp- jp --if — •“ - 

53 

vb mi 

History of the growth of, in the United States. 373 

Estimated loss of revenue by . 405. 

Investigations into, at Xew "York .. 32,33 

Reports on, by Special Agents. ... 80, 89 

Statement ©once ruing, by General Appraiser Perry, New York.. 216> 

List of most important articles undervalued ... 344 

Reasons for failure of Appraising officers to act upon evidence of. 336 

More extensive at New York than elsewhere. 342 

Legislation needed to suppress. ....• 46 

Specific duties recommended as a remedy for (eoe also “ Specific Duties ”) ..42, 46, 500 

The prosecution of. iu court. ... 869 

Effect of the repeal of the “ Moiety Act,” on prosecutions for. 867 

Co-operation of appraising officers iu suppression of, requested by the Department. 99 

Difficulties in the suppression of... 89 

Habitual by certain importers. Suggestions as to the treatment of such.. 41 

Foreigu shippers and New York agents do not regard as unlawful. 41 

General practice of, frankly admitted by agents of foreign shippers. 42 

Statement by appraising officers that 90 per cent, of imported silks are intentionally under¬ 
valued on entry....\. 5] 

Due to faults of administration...... 40 

Practice of. encouraged by disposition of appraisers to shield importers from "legal conse¬ 
quences of. . . 46 


H 24? 84 a 























































INDEX 


4 


1 


er valuations— Continued. 

UnqUxcessive consignments from Europe, invited by facility with which u 

are passed .1. 

•Silk goods as a rule undervalued. .. 

derwood, Ad in 85., surveyor, Boston Mass.: Answer to inquiries 
U n 

V. 


alues; 

V Difficulty of obtaining evidence as to actual market value. 

Suggestions as to method of obtaining true market values. 

Consignees and their business friends virtually fix t he market vs 

v aiues, Dutiable: 

Confusion in the minds of customs officials as to proper method? 
361, 368, 375, 383, 389, 404, 424, 439, 444, 455, 462, 469, 477, 486, 
534, 536, 538, 544, 554, 563, 569, 571, 587, 603, 629, 640, 664 671, 
730, 734, 738, 739, 743, 745, 746, 762, 767, 769, 772, 777, 788, 791. 

The question of the interference of the executive or judicial 

ment of, by the collectors.364,377,384,392,407,412,4! 

491, 493, 496, 497, 501, 502, 505, 511, 520, 523, 529, 545, 559, 5i 
645, 658, 665, 672, 681, 683, 688, 695, 698, 707, 709, 714, 718, 7 

78 { 791 799 817 819 

Elements of... .338, 447, 500, 503, 516, 554, 569, 586, 589, 600, 603,' 

726, 734, 737, 738, 739, 743, 752, 762, 767, 769, 772, 788, 791, 

Distinction between “market ” values and. 

Difference between “invoice,” “entry,” “market” and 

Values, market: 

What constitutes?. 

Valuations: 

Concealment of actual foreign market value a feature 
Home valuations concealed from appraising officers a 
Ascertainment of, on reappraisement, influenced by t 
Reports of Government experts in foreign places as 
Valentine, John J£., United States Attorney, Phila' 

officials . .. 

Vicksburg-, Miss., Port of : Statement of collector 

W 

W9inwright, J. M., examiner, Hew York: A 
Waldoboro’, Me., port of: Statement of colie' 

Wales, 15. 85., examiner, Boston: Answer to i 

Wall rot h. Fmi.: 

Charges irregularities in the importation of 
Charges against special agents concerning 

the nonpayment of income tax . 

Ward, William 81., examiner, Hew Y< 

Wntson-Ccirdwood linen case: 

Investigation ordered .. 

Statements of facts by the comruissic 
Gmlwood’s statement that he was t 
a portion of money paid to custo r 
Watson, Oirdwood & to.’s g< 

furnishing reason. 

Wearing! apparel: Loose defii 
Webster, 16dwin Sill., collector 
Welch, James 16., examiner, 

Wellington, ileorge IT., ex 

ciais . .. 

Veighing: 

Irregularities in. at Hew 
Collusion between weig 
Irregularities in, condo 
Recommendation that' 

Weighing Departnu 

Weighers: Illegal fee*- 
Weighing and me: 

409, 417, 418 
585, 5*9, 6 
Vbarf examir 
Ho law fo- 
Recomir 
’’'heeler. 

V heclir 
bite 
hit< 


b* 

V" 













INDEX, 


Page. 

206 

208 

268 


42.1 
2(i< 

..:.365, 378, 392, 418, 421, 427,431, 441, 79; 

483, 493, 505, 537, 559, 564, 570, 646, 681, 717, 730, 743, 785, 801, 830, 851, 856, 51 
at industry...431, 432, "61 


manufactures of... -33 


.. • JO 

a value for foreign market and another for home market the 

sis for the assessment of duties ... . >75 

’iia. 339 

. 340 

. i20 

r, Boston ■ Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 468 

or, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials .. 667 

New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 5C8 


\ r . 

ser, San Francisco: Answer to inquiries to customs 

... 8 

ton: Answer to inquiries to customs officials. 4 


fc of: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat ..._ 

f of: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

t of: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat. 

1 Em ploy 6, Ogdensbnrg. N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to customs 


fc of Collector as to reduction of force thereat . . 

United States: Answer to inquiries to customs officials 






















































































yv A 





5ft 







% "’ ° h ° 0 *°\,.. <** ... r \> ‘* ;v 
- ♦- <* ' •'idEfe V ,Wa‘« ^ > v ♦'iaK*. ,-j 





> *V o # 

-G v '«•»*' A 

0^ * ^ ^ ^ ^ o c 0 N ® # 

C ^ 


" %A 

. . - ——. <*V 

«* # ^v • 

» 5 ,6 V "o, 'o.T* 

A V * i » » ^ ^ 

U t* o_ 

* O «T*r » 

v ^ ^ ' 

> y ^O k 

, wvo % ° f»P ^ <£r ^ <0*7V *“' 

% •«• 0 *° ,,.o.^> ' «.., * '"° f° . %. *"’■ 


-•' , ^» v * 
: *+ o* ., 




$• 







4 v .....V '*” of 

”V c° * 
* ^0‘ • 


its 


. . . «5 °x. 

e{* ^ ^ 

^ ST %> *0*0° 

^ --* •» ^ •* V ^ v a 







v/> c,' 


* ^ '*•** A ^ '‘^..s* «G^ ^ *o , * * A 

6 ° jfi l '”* ^^ .<H> A^* 0 ’"**' 


~ < * HC ^'S\\N^r 5r « A a 2y^/yjP&r I K. y ^ 

*v ’' > ”° < ’ A %. * , * ,i * ! A *«#. **•*•*’ ^ 

% A *Wa*. ^ -0, V -fU *!**% ^ 


■'fcs* 


A v^> ; 

«* A ^ •. 

’A <» * 

4^ 0 N o . <6 

-A • 0 c x^ > t^ ^ 
i? o' 







^ ■ -- 
O v % 

°. W : 

• 

^ Jr “.VW 4 ^ 

<0^ ^ '«• * * A 

,V „i»«. ^ A V 



% # V 

’".To* A ^ *‘ 
o, ,o v 

*• *V A 'W*‘" «s. A' 

* .v^. r'x 

* A V ^ » 


CV v _ „ 
O' ^ o n° 

V t /Wv/A O. J 

: 



j4 V e oNe -» ^ 

A tV « -rSSv, ^ ^ 

"bf j'laBfi ^ 


/ .4^ % 



♦ o^ 

^ o 

< 

° _ «5 -VH(!S50»« iy?v - 

r(* +^(JI i* -J 1 - O ft " °‘ 4 , 

rs ftf" '’ A <U *•»»• A°^ ^ ♦.,!*• 

♦ ^ <0 <v f * O/. v* A -s^o, *^-v t „ _ 

# . ^ A* /jaV^o ^ A ^ xV A- ^ < 


^ r9 


^9' 



»T °o 

' <y % • 


A > - xxxx™^ - 

aV u '‘''T'/s 9 A v "o *o .;« 

v ft o N o -<5> A t » 0 *£* 

% ^ .0 t * O 

’ ^o*» :im&' -ov 

5°^ 


° ^ A 







HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. _ 

^ OCT 84 

\=W N. MANCHESTER, 


































































































































